NEW WRIT

Ordered,
	That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Glenrothes in the room of John William MacDougall, Esquire, deceased.— [Mr. Nicholas Brown.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Teaching Life Skills

Graham Allen: What steps he is taking to make the teaching of life skills to pupils between the ages of 11 and 16 years more relevant to the needs of areas with high levels of teenage pregnancy and drug and alcohol abuse and low educational aspiration; and if he will make a statement.

Beverley Hughes: The flexibility in the new secondary curriculum allows teachers to tailor it to local circumstances and the needs of all pupils. Personal learning and thinking skills, which I agree are critical if children are to reach their potential, are embedded in the curriculum. Through personal, social and health education, young people are helped to develop the social and emotional skills that they need to make informed decisions and good choices. The children's plan announced reviews of sex, relationship and drugs education, and those reviews will report shortly.

Graham Allen: The Minister will know that the basis of all attainment is adequate social and emotional intelligence, but the provision of life skills education for those aged 11 to 16 is currently not fit for purpose in constituencies such as mine. Sex and relationship education, PSHE, civics and the secondary-level teaching of SEAL—the social and emotional aspects of learning—all create a confused, overlapping and unstructured offering. Will the Minister support Nottingham's early intervention plan to pull together a coherent 11-to-16 life skills curriculum, including modules on preventing teenage pregnancy and reducing drink and drug abuse? Will she ensure that it reaches the years that need it most, and becomes a mandatory, tested and inspected part of the curriculum?

Beverley Hughes: Many schools across the country are already doing what my hon. Friend suggests, using the new secondary curriculum to build an innovative, personalised curriculum for their pupils that has personal thinking and learning social and emotional skills at its heart. Of course, schools now have a statutory duty to promote the well-being of their pupils. The new curriculum gives schools the flexibility to do that. There is an extensive programme of support to enable schools to start developing their curriculum. I understand that only three schools in the city of Nottingham have attended the PSHE events, and that schools there have not drawn down the expert help that we are offering. If my hon. Friend can encourage schools in Nottingham to do that, they can make the same progress that schools across the country are already making.

Angela Watkinson: The ethos of the school and the wishes of parents and governors should be the main driver of the PSHE curriculum. Will the Minister guarantee that there will be no national prescription of the content of PSHE? There are many schools where PSHE is already very successful and reflects the cultural and religious views of the school's community. Where it is necessary, and where there is failure, help should be given, but some schools are already perfectly capable of providing such a service.

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Lady is probably aware that there are two new, non-statutory PSHE frameworks that schools can apply and develop according to the needs of their pupils and the wishes of parents. As I have said, we are currently reviewing sex and relationship education, and will come forward with the outcome of that review shortly.

Ann Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another aspect to the lack of education about sex and unprotected sex? Many women today have to undergo invasive, unpleasant and expensive treatment to help them to conceive, but they would not have been in that position if they had had information fed to them at school about the need to have protected sex to avoid conditions such as chlamydia.

Beverley Hughes: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has done a great deal of work on the issue, that the long-term effects of early and unprotected sexual activity and of getting pregnant in one's teens are numerous. She identifies some of the health consequences, but of course there are also other consequences, such as poverty and lack of opportunity later in life. That is why we have put a great deal of effort into reducing teenage pregnancy and making sure that young people can get the advice that they need when they need it on all aspects of sexual health.

Alistair Burt: The new child maintenance and enforcement commissioner recently suggested that children as young as 11 be taught about the consequences of becoming young fathers, and the repercussions of failing to fulfil their parental responsibilities. While that is admirable, does the Minister think that there is room in the curriculum for such information, and does she think that it will be successful?

Beverley Hughes: I agree, if the hon. Gentleman is making a general point about the need to focus on the behaviour of boys as well as of girls when we try to help young people to make the right choices in relation to sexual activity. I would certainly like to see as much a focus on boys as on girls within SHE in schools and within sex and relationship education. I am sure that that is something on which the review will comment, and I hope that we can take that forward.

Kelvin Hopkins: Britain stands in stark contrast to many countries in continental Europe in these matters. For example, only a little while ago in Holland, there was one sixth the number of teenage pregnancies compared with Britain. Is my right hon. Friend looking into why those contrasts are so dramatic, and can we learn something from countries such as Holland that would serve to improve the situation in Britain?

Beverley Hughes: Yes, indeed, I think that we can, and we have been looking at that quite closely. It is true that our relatively high teenage pregnancy rates in this country are long standing, and go back as far as records began, some 40 years ago. In making comparisons, a couple of factors might be associated with the different rates in different western countries. First, in Holland, there is much more acceptance by parents of the subject, and there is a freedom and lack of embarrassment among parents when talking to their children about sexual activity—much more so than here. Secondly, the quality and nature of the sex and relationship education in Dutch schools is something from which we can learn.

Robert Key: Whether or not it is schools teaching too much sex or parents teaching too little, or the other way round or neither, the fact is that in my constituency, which I guess is typical, the major public health problems among young people are chlamydia and penile warts, exacerbated by excessive alcohol consumption. That is a real problem, and we have been ducking it for years. It is time that we recognised that there is a free-for-all out there among young people, who are not inhibited by the social mores under which most of us grew up. Is it not time that we helped them, and whether the answer is schools or parents, or both, we have to raise the tone of this debate?

Beverley Hughes: I certainly agree that for a minority of young people, that is a problem that we have to take seriously, and we are doing so. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that there is clearly a link for some young people between alcohol and drug consumption and unsafe sex. However, I regret the general stereotype that he painted, because it is not true of all young people. We should be careful in the House lest we reinforce the negative stereotypes of young people that we see all around us in the press, which are very regrettable.

Tim Loughton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his excellent work with the Centre for Social Justice and on his co-authorship of the pamphlet, "Early Intervention" because he knows more than most people about the problem, as after 11 years of Labour Government in Nottingham, his city has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in western Europe and, at 8 per cent., the lowest proportion of people going into higher education. Does the Minister agree that the teaching of life skills is not just the responsibility of teachers battling to fit everything into the curriculum, and that school nurses, parents and other professionals have a key role to play in reducing teenage pregnancies and substance abuse as a precursor to better educational achievement? In that case, why in a parliamentary answer of 3 June from a Health Minister, was it revealed that the grand total of qualified school nurses employed by Nottingham City primary care trust amounted to zero?

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that dealing with the issue at local level involves all the relevant organisations, as well as parents, working together. Health professionals have a clear role to play. I cannot tell him what the figures are for Nottingham, but I will obtain them for him.

Tim Loughton: Zero.

Beverley Hughes: I do not think that that figure is probably right, but I will check it. The number of health qualified professionals working in the community nationally—that includes community nurses, school nurses and district nurses as well as health visitors—has risen under the Government, and I am sure that that will be shown to be the case in Nottingham as well.

Primary Schools (Rural Areas)

Ann Winterton: What steps he is taking to maintain the provision of primary schools in rural areas.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The Government are committed to rural primary schools. Recognising that small rural schools cost more to run, we provide extra funding to sparsely populated areas, and we calculate the dedicated schools grant in 2007-08 contained almost £188 million funding for sparsity. To protect rural schools, we introduced a presumption against closure in 1998, which has reduced the number of closures by two thirds. In January, my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners wrote to local authorities, reminding them of the presumption and making it clear that we wanted spare capacity in rural schools to be put to other use—for example, to broaden the services that schools offer in line with the likely future pattern of children's services. We also promote shared governance arrangements between small village schools as a means of addressing financial and educational challenges.

Ann Winterton: I am glad that the Minister agrees with me that the survival of rural primary schools is absolutely vital to the areas that they serve. However, bearing in mind that the prediction of school rolls is an inexact science and that during an economic downturn the birth rate often goes up, does the Minister agree that a reduction of capacity from 105 to 75 places at Church Lawton school in my constituency, for example, is a contribution to the reduction of surplus places throughout Cheshire, and that Church Lawton as a whole should not be deprived of the school, which is down to be closed?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Church Lawton school is not designated as a rural school, and it is the local authority's responsibility to manage spare capacity in all the schools in its area. We can never guarantee that no rural school will ever close, but we hope that given the measures that we have taken, the presumption against closure and by working together to try to get in other children's services, we can protect surplus places and recognise the valuable contribution that rural schools play.

Elfyn Llwyd: The presumption against closure is an excellent step forward. What active encouragement is there in respect of the clustering of schools—one headmaster, say, being responsible for two or three schools—as opposed to having to look towards closure? Clustering can be creative and useful. Are the Government giving instruction in that regard?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We recognise that rural schools play a vital role. In trying to keep them open, we are helping them to work with other organisations within the local authority and community at the sort of clustering that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We will issue further guidance.

Nicholas Winterton: I support the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) of Plaid Cymru who has just put his question—

Patrick Cormack: And your hon. Friend, too!

Nicholas Winterton: Indeed; I also support my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), who put the original question.
	Does the Minister not accept that transforming learning communities is causing huge anxiety in rural areas and that schools in rural areas are often the centre of community activity? Will she look carefully at whether the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—to have a federation or partnership of rural schools—is the way to ensure that a very large number of rural schools can be kept open?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Having federations of schools is one of the ways in which we expect this to work; there is also the sharing of governance arrangements and the use of spare capacity in schools for other children's services. We expect schools across the country to be the centres of their communities. Nowhere is that more true than in rural areas. We will certainly take that suggestion on board; in fact, we are already doing so.

Academy Programme

Bob Russell: If he will make a statement on the future of the academy programme.

Edward Balls: May I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) to the Front Bench and congratulate Lord Adonis on his further elevation and promotion to the position of Minister of State at the Department for Transport?
	Due, in part, to Lord Adonis's important work, 47 new academies opened this September, part of the biggest opening of new schools that we have seen for more than three decades. On top of the 130 academies now open, four more are due to open in January, 80 next September and a further 100 in 2010—well on the way to our goal of at least 400 academies nationwide. Today, I have given the go-ahead to three new academies, in Northampton, Poole and Portsmouth; they all replace national challenge schools.

Bob Russell: May I advise the Secretary of State that although there is much rejoicing at Lord Adonis's move to the Department for Transport, unfortunately the academy locomotive is still steaming down the track? Where local communities have demonstrated as clearly as they did my constituency in May, when the Conservatives lost five seats partly because they want to impose academies on the town, will he listen to those local communities and pick up on the concept of federations as the way forward, not the imposition of academies when people do not want them?

Edward Balls: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appearance at today's Question Time; he is rather lonely on his Benches. [Hon. Members: "So are you!"] There is more than one.
	Today, the Minister for Schools and Learners and I took the opportunity to have a discussion with Lord Adonis, who will continue to ensure that he gives us his views on academies. He told me that on Friday he spent some time in the cab of a train, which he said was the most exciting day of his life so far.
	The hon. Gentleman will know that the question of whether to bring forward proposals for academies is a matter for the local authority, not for us. It is for the local authority to decide on the way forward and to consult and build a consensus. There are several different ways in which structural change can occur for national challenge schools, and there is the option of a national challenge trust as well. I will wait to see whether Essex proposes academies—that decision is imminent—but it is for the local authority to decide rather than me.

Bruce George: Will the Secretary of State accept that not everybody is quite as enthusiastic about academies? I do not oppose academies, but, first, the consultation process has to be adequate. Secondly, more than one choice should be given to an authority and to the governors. Thirdly, in my view—I hope that the Secretary of State will agree—somebody who is heavily committed to a political party should not be chosen as the single sponsor. Fourthly, in a school where a high percentage of the kids come from a range of religions, the person chosen as sponsor should not be a little off-centre with his own religious views and proselytising skills.

Edward Balls: Given those comments, I am not sure whether "off-centre" means lurching to the left or to the right, but I will not comment on the individual case of a sponsor. It is of course extremely important that the consultation is done properly. I am pleased that more than half our universities are now coming forward as sponsors of academies. It is very important to forge a consensus in the governing body, in the school and among parents as to the way forward. The important thing to say, though, is that academies are delivering results faster than average, often in the poorest communities, so they provide real opportunities for young people in our country.

Mark Field: I very much support the academy programme, which is making a great difference in my constituency at the erstwhile Pimlico school, which has had academy status. However, one concern is brought up time and again—that whereas the old school had no fewer than seven parent governors, the new academy constitution allows for just one parent governor. What does the Secretary of State think of that? In future, will the treatment of parent governors ensure that academies can have a proper rooting in a local community?

Edward Balls: It is very important that the sponsor is able to lead the school, but it is also vital that parents are properly involved in the school. There is a clear requirement as regards parent governors, but there is also a minimum requirement. It is open to the school to have more parent governors, or alternatively to have a parent council. It is vital to our reforms that there is more active engagement and involvement of parents in setting up and managing schools. We are currently taking forward proposals for 100 co-operative trust schools, which will actively engage parents as members of the school community. There are different ways in which this can be done, but every school, including academies, needs to ensure that it involves parents properly.

Kerry McCarthy: A year ago, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister opened a new school in east Bristol that exemplifies what the Government are trying to do to improve educational standards in deprived areas. It is an academy, it is a federated school, and it was the first school to be completed under the Building Schools for the Future programme. I thank the Secretary of State for returning to Bristol Brunel academy this month. Does he agree that what he saw on that visit proved that Labour's education reforms are working?

Edward Balls: The fact that the rise in results over the past 12 months was so dramatic shows that our education reforms are working. Bristol Brunel academy has a fabulous new building and great leadership. The teaching staff are really onside for it, and the results speak for themselves. We want to have more academies like Brunel around the country. I look at it and am proud at what a Labour Government are delivering in Bristol.

Graham Stuart: The Secretary of State may have been envious of the success and cross-party support enjoyed by the architect of the academies programme, Lord Adonis, but was that really reason enough to force him out?

Edward Balls: That was rather a silly question, if I may say so. Lord Adonis was promoted from Under-Secretary with responsibility for schools to Minister of State at the Department for Transport and, as he has said very clearly, he went to the Prime Minister and said that because academies were now embedded as part of our schools system and were so successful, he wanted to move to a new challenge. I fully backed that. I tried to persuade him to stay at our Department because I thought he was doing a brilliant job, but he wanted a new challenge. We have an excellent successor in the Minister for Schools and Learners, who will lead the academies programme forward. My advice to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) is to ignore the gossip and look at the facts.

David Taylor: Given the ascension of the spiritual leader of academies to the Department for Transport, and given that private sector investment is being withdrawn, that there are disproportionately high exclusion rates and that there is opposition from parents in Bolton, Camden, Colchester, Sheffield and a number of other places, would it not be kinder to draw a veil over this unfortunate experiment so that local authorities can go back to running schools, giving a voice to the communities that those schools serve?

Edward Balls: The answer is no. That would be the wrong thing to do.

Michael Gove: First, I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) on her elevation to the Front Bench, and may I also congratulate the Minister for Schools and Learners on his elevation to the Privy Council? Both are richly deserved promotions.
	Since taking over his Department, the Secretary of State has deprived new academies of many freedoms and he has sacked Sir Cyril Taylor, the guiding spirit of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. Now he is deprived of the services of Lord Adonis. To lose one of the parents of the academies programme might seem like a misfortune, but to lose two looks rather like carelessness. In the past few months, we have discovered that the Government have cut core funding for the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust from 60 per cent. of the trust's income to just 20 per cent. Is the academies programme still safe in the Secretary of State's hands?

Edward Balls: That question was even worse than the one from the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart). The Specialist Schools and Academies Trust is expanding its role in schools throughout the country. It is helping us to take forward our academies programme and, through the national challenge, our proposals for national challenge trusts and wider specialisms. The appointment of the chair was a matter for the trust and was not something that I was involved in at all. Lord Adonis was promoted and is moving on to new challenges because we are accelerating our academies programme. As I said, today we are announcing three new academies: the Unity college in Northamptonshire, the Rossmore school in Poole and St. Luke's in Portsmouth. Those academies are all national challenge schools, which will see their standards rise because of the injection of new funding and support that can come from an academy.
	The suggestion that I have taken the academies programme backwards in the past year is complete nonsense. I have brought more universities into our academies programme than ever before, I have made sure that our academies are teaching the core parts of the curriculum, while retaining their basic flexibility, and I am building a broad-based consensus about the importance of academies in our country, which would be put at risk by the cuts to the Building Schools for the Future programme proposed by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). He is talking complete nonsense. It is my party that will take forward the academies programme; it is his party that would put those investments at risk.

Michael Gove: It is interesting to see that the Secretary of State decides to reward success by kicking Lord Adonis out of his Department and decides to back academies by cutting funding for the body behind them.
	Talking of cutting funding, may I ask why the Government have also denied funding to Teach First, preventing a charity that does so much to help academies expand into the north-east from doing its work? Can we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will remain true to the academies programme not just in name, but in spirit, and that he will endorse the vision outlined by Lord Adonis of "independent state-funded schools" influenced by "the successful Swedish experience", which operate "outside the local authority system"?

Edward Balls: Once again, what we are getting from the hon. Gentleman is laughable, bombastic nonsense. The fact is that we are expanding the Teach First programme, not cutting it. We introduced it, and we are expanding it. We are accelerating our academies programme. Again, we introduced it and we are expanding it. We are bringing more sponsors into our academies programme and putting more money in. We now have more academies coming forward year by year than before I arrived in the Department. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman's so-called Swedish proposals, which would cut £4.5 billion from the constituencies of Conservative Members, would be the biggest threat to our academies programme and our school building programme.
	I am happy to have these debates with the hon. Gentleman. It is good to see that he is at last willing to have discussions during oral questions about the future of our school building programme because, over the next 18 months, we will expose the grave risks to our school system that he represents.

Phyllis Starkey: Milton Keynes academy in my constituency is being built as we speak, superseding the Sir Frank Markham school, which has had a rather troubled history. The academy is greatly welcomed by the students, their parents, their teachers and the local community. May I urge the Secretary of State to concentrate on taking this policy forward and to rise above the ridiculous personality-obsessed politics of the Opposition?

Edward Balls: I would be very happy to take my hon. Friend's advice.

UK Council for Child Internet Safety

John Whittingdale: What progress has been made on the establishment of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety; and if he will make a statement.

Beverley Hughes: On 29 September, the Government launched the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, an unprecedented coalition of 100 organisations dedicated to working with us on improving internet safety for children and young people. Reporting directly to the Prime Minister, the council will work to implement the recommendations in Dr. Tanya Byron's landmark report, "Safer Children in a Digital World". This launch fulfils the Government's commitment set out in our action plan, which we published last June following the Byron review.

John Whittingdale: I welcome the establishment of the council, but will the Government and the council now consider the recommendation of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee that the industry should come forward with a self-regulatory body to implement the council's recommendations, to publish performance statistics and to adjudicate on complaints arising when member bodies do not meet those recommendations? Does the Minister not feel that the establishment of such a body would help to improve public confidence that everything possible is being done to increase our children's safety online?

Beverley Hughes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I also thank him for the work that he has done on this matter through the Select Committee and for the Committee's report, to which we will respond shortly. Everyone on all sides, and particularly the Government, agrees that there needs to be stronger self-regulation by the industry on a whole range of fronts. Self-regulation is the right way to go, given that many of the internet sites are hosted outside the United Kingdom and are therefore outside our jurisdiction. We therefore need very strong self-regulation. We are open to discussion on whether that would involve a particular body or a new body. The industry is well represented on the council, as the hon. Gentleman knows, alongside other sectors to which we shall also want to listen. We are open to discussion on how we get there, but much stronger self-regulation is absolutely imperative. On that, I agree with him.

Brian Iddon: Zentek Forensics in my constituency has analysed the use of the internet by several school pupils, and the news is not good. They are undoubtedly accessing undesirable internet sites by breaking through the firewalls that the schools provide. What advice is my right hon. Friend giving to all schools to prevent that from happening?

Beverley Hughes: We have already given quite extensive advice to schools, but we also want the council to consider whether we need to go further in that regard. Another aspect of the council's work is to help us to progress our commitments on providing public education and public information to parents, children and young people. This is an important part of the range of factors that we need to address so that young people can understand the dangers that they face when they enter inappropriate sites with inappropriate content.

David Evennett: I am very interested in what the Minister said about parents, because it is essential that more guidance and information are given to parents so that they are able to understand the mechanisms that restrict access to unsuitable sites. May I urge the Minister to make giving parents that information a top priority in public education?

Beverley Hughes: Yes, that important strand of the work is now going ahead. We have accepted Tanya Byron's recommendations for a public information awareness campaign and we have put in £9 million to develop an authoritative one-stop shop or site on the internet where parents can go for advice and information. We also want to ensure that we suffuse information about e-safety over other helplines and internet sites that we fund to provide parents with information more generally, so that they can get the advice that they need.

Sally Keeble: Would my right hon. Friend ensure that any recommendations from the UK Council for Child Internet Safety apply equally to private and state schools? In particular, will she close the current loophole whereby directors of children's education services have no power to intervene in independent schools in order to protect children's well-being?

Beverley Hughes: We have a very good relationship with private schools on a range of matters through the Independent Schools Council. Independent schools are certainly very willing to work with us on issues concerning the safety of children. I will certainly take on board my hon. Friend's comments.

Sex and Relationship Education

John Bercow: What recent assessment he has made of the quality of sex and relationship education in schools.

Jim Knight: As part of the children's plan, we have given a commitment to review best practice in effective sex and relationship education and its delivery in schools. We have fully involved young people in the review, many of whom told us that they did not have the knowledge they needed to make safe and responsible choices about relationships and sexual health. We expect to announce the review's recommendations shortly.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that extremely informative reply. Given the chronic rates of teenage pregnancies in this country, the rising incidence of sexually transmitted infections among young people and the description by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority of our sex and relationship education as patchy, will the Minister now heed the call by the Sex Education Forum to make sex education part of statutory personal, social and health education, to be delivered by a qualified work force in an age-appropriate way, as a matter of priority?

Jim Knight: As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes his points clearly and forcefully; I always listen to what he has to say. Teenage pregnancy rates have fallen by 12.9 per cent. over the past 20 years, so, although there is further to go, we have made some good progress. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that we need to improve the consistent quality of sex and relationship education. I have received many strong representations for making personal, social and health education statutory in order to address the problem. I think that that is only part of the argument, but we will make our announcement shortly.

Neil Gerrard: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that Ofsted has said that a substantial amount of PSHE is not satisfactory and that too many teachers are not well qualified to teach it. Will the Minister also heed that the PSHE Association, which supports teachers, has said that in many cases teachers find it difficult to get time off for professional development in that subject because the school does not regard it as a high priority? Making the teaching of PSHE statutory would, I am sure, help schools to give the subject the priority it deserves and secure better qualified teachers.

Jim Knight: My hon. Friend is right that Ofsted has raised concerns about the consistency of the quality of the teaching of sex and relationship education. That echoes the work of the UK Youth Parliament and the Sex Education Forum, which each conducted a survey of young people that showed that about 40 per cent. and a third of young people respectively said that the sex and relationship education they received was not good enough. We set up the PSHE Association in order to improve its overall quality. I am listening closely to the argument that my hon. Friend makes for statutory provision of PSHE.

Patrick Cormack: Whatever may be done in secondary schools, is there not something deeply disturbing about a society in which young primary school children can be taught the mechanics of sex by those who are not allowed to put a comforting hand on their shoulders?

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting philosophical point. It is important that we as a society allow better sex and relationship education in both primary and secondary schools without sexualising young people too early. It is right to share the responsibility between home and school: it is not something that schools can deliver on their own; parents need to have a loud voice in how sex and relationship education is delivered for their children. As a Government we put the safeguarding of children as our highest priority and we will continue to do so.

Jeff Ennis: On that very point, before entering this place I had 20 years' experience as a teacher. I once had a post teaching health education, including sex education, at Hillsborough primary school in Sheffield. It was always my view that the best way to teach sex education was to do so in the early years at primary school, so involving the parents before the children reached the age of puberty. Does the Minister agree that we are talking about the beginnings of teaching sex education and that that ought to be done in the primary sector, rather than leaving it to the later stages in secondary school?

Jim Knight: My hon. Friend is right that the international evidence suggests that teaching aspects of sex and relationship education before puberty has a positive effect on such things as teenage pregnancy rates. Clearly, that has to be done with a high degree of sensitivity and, as he says, the involvement of parents, with children reaching puberty at different ages. We must ensure not only that, as a society, we are comfortable with the level of detail and of education that people receive during sex education, but that we are strong on relationship education. We are proud of the introduction of SEAL—the social and emotional aspects of learning—which my shadow described as ghastly, but which is improving relationship education in primary as well as secondary schools.

Maria Miller: The Government's guidelines clearly say that sex education has to be delivered in the context of relationships to be effective, but the Youth Parliament has already shown that four out of 10 youngsters have not received any relationship education while at school. For more than six years, Ofsted has been calling for fundamental changes in how sex and relationship education is taught in our schools and the Minister's new review is welcome, but when will he be able to reassure parents and young people that action has been taken and that every child will be taught sex and relationship education by a teacher who understands best how to deliver that challenging subject, because they have had some training in it?

Jim Knight: I would be happy to proceed on the issue on a cross-party basis, and I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady this week if she would like to discuss where we might end up with our review. She is right that it is important that we have strong relationship education as well as sex education. It is important that we have listened to the voices of young people. That is why I co-chaired the review with a member of the UK Youth Parliament, which did such useful work in its survey of more than 20,000 young people.

School Meals

Robert Goodwill: If he will make a statement on the uptake of school meals in secondary schools.

Edward Balls: The latest School Food Trust survey shows that take-up of school meals in England at secondary school level stabilised between 2007 and 2008 at just below 38 per cent., which brings to a halt the steady decline that we have seen since the mid-1970s.

Robert Goodwill: Schools up and down the country are banning all sorts of ingredients, such as Marmite and tomato ketchup. My favourite food, in common with many children, is chips. Will the Secretary of State explain why oven chips, which contain less than 5 per cent. fat and qualify for three green traffic lights, are subject to the same restrictions as their deep-fried unhealthy alternative?

Edward Balls: I was at two schools on Friday, both of which were serving chips. There are restrictions on the serving of chips, but not an outright ban. As for the detail of the difference between deep-fried and oven chips, the matter has been gone through in detail by the School Food Trust over the past couple of years during consultation with the industry. There are fewer restrictions on certain products than on others, depending on the nutritional content of the food. I shall not go into the detail of the precise nutritional content of oven chips—that is something I shall leave to the experts.

David Kidney: Having last enjoyed a delicious Staffordshire school meal only two weeks ago, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the great improvement in the quality of meals over the past three years, which is leading to more locally sourced ingredients and healthier, fresher food? However, at this year's Labour party conference, did my right hon. Friend note the concerns expressed about the affordability of school meals, and the calls for a broadening of the entitlement to free meals? Might the money that he has been given jointly with the Department of Health make it possible to offer all new entrants an initial free trial of school meals, so that they and their parents can become used to the quality that such meals now offer?

Edward Balls: A number of local authorities are already doing precisely that. A couple of weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I had lunch with a group of five-year-olds in a Bolton primary school that offered free meals throughout the first term of the reception year. We have put more than £240 million into subsidising ingredients over the next three years. We have also announced that we will conduct a £20 million pilot in two local authority areas to assess the impact that free school meals in primary schools for all children can have on health, discipline and learning. We will examine the results in detail, and then consider the next steps.
	It is still of concern to me that slightly more than half our primary school children are not having a hot meal at lunch time. I should like to see the take-up increase, and I hope that the free school meal pilots will help us to work out how we can achieve that.

Topical Questions

Philip Hollobone: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Edward Balls: This afternoon I am publishing for Parliament our 14-to-19 implementation plan. I welcome recent endorsements from Ofsted and the Public Accounts Committee of our focus on quality rather than quantity. Consistent with that approach, the latest figures from local consortiums show that 12,000 young people started diploma courses this September. I am also announcing today plans for a world-class academy—the Joseph Cyril Bamford academy—in Staffordshire that will cater exclusively for diploma students. All the Russell and 1994 groups of universities are now accepting our diplomas, and Wellington college was the first major independent school to announce that it would offer the engineering diploma from next September.
	Education maintenance allowances are vital to ensure that students from low-income families stay at school or college after the age of 16. Following processing delays in recent weeks, as of last Thursday 580,000 of the 682,000 applications received had been processed. The backlog has fallen from 155,000 a few weeks ago to 92,000 at the end of last week.
	The Schools Minister has today written to all colleges to express his disappointment at the continuing delays, to assure them that the contractor and the Learning and Skills Council are doing all that they can to process the remaining applications as quickly as possible, and to inform them that he has agreed with the LSC that if any college has insufficient funds to cover the needs of students in hardship, it should contact the LSC to discuss the need for additional funds so that no learner loses out.

Philip Hollobone: During the recess, the Secretary of State wrote to all secondary schools in the country encouraging them to participate in the Give and Let Live donor education programme for 14-to-16-year-olds. Given that the Northamptonshire-based Jeanette Crizzle Trust, of which I am pleased to be a trustee, recently commissioned independent research which demonstrated that only 3 per cent. of schools were taking part in that important programme, what level of take-up does the Secretary of State expect this year as a result of his letter?

Edward Balls: This subject has been close to my work and that of many other Members in recent months. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will wish to send their condolences and sympathies to the parents of Adrian Sudbury, who sadly died in August. He had campaigned for more information and support in schools in regard to blood and bone marrow transplants. The memorial service for Adrian is on Friday, and I shall be meeting his parents tomorrow.
	As part of the commitment that I made to Adrian in August, I said that the Secretary of State for Health and I would write to all secondary schools to ensure that they had information about the Give and Let Live programme, and also that we would update the pack of material that goes to secondary schools to encourage more young people to become donors. I know that the hon. Gentleman himself has campaigned on this issue for a number of years. The research commissioned by the Jeanette Crizzle Trust was conducted before the mailings in September, and revealed that the majority of schools surveyed were not aware of the details of the material.
	We will push hard to ensure that all schools publicise the importance of the Give and Let Live campaign, and the importance of young people becoming donors through their curriculum and in other ways through their schools. We will do so informed by that research. As I have said, tomorrow I will be talking to Adrian Sudbury's parents about how we can proceed with the campaign even after his death.

Kerry McCarthy: The Saturday before last, I joined four Labour Cabinet Ministers and thousands of others at the "keep the promise—end child poverty" rally in central London. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what assurances he gave to campaigners when he met them on that occasion? Does he share my concern that there is no way that the UK will meet its promise to abolish child poverty if we elect a Conservative Government at the next election?

Edward Balls: There were representatives from all political parties on the march the other week. I was pleased to be there, and to meet my hon. Friend's constituents and others as part of that march. It is very important that we reaffirm our commitment, goals and targets to halve child poverty—then double that—by the end of the next decade. The measures in the Budget that were introduced in spring this year will take hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. The thing that concerns me is that the money that is needed to pay for the measures to reduce child poverty were all opposed by the Conservative party.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Secretary of State investigate the plight of 16 to 19-year-old students in further education who are having problems accessing their maintenance grants as a result of failings by the contracting company Liberata? Why has that situation been allowed to arise? Is it not yet another example of his Department failing to manage important commercial contracts?

Edward Balls: I do not think that it is, but, as I have said, the Schools Minister has written today to all colleges throughout the country. An issue arose in August in that the contractor was unable to meet the demand at that time because of its IT processing and calls to its helpline. There has been active work by the contractor and the Learning and Skills Council to get those matters under control, which is being achieved. It is important that those problems are scrutinised and I was pleased that the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families announced that it is planning to consider them. It is important that we learn lessons. We regret what has happened but it has fundamentally been a failure of the contractor and its IT systems.

Bob Russell: Will the Secretary of State accept that Essex county council has no mandate from the people of Colchester when it comes to academies? If he is looking for consensus as to the way forward, will he not accept that, where communities wish to have academies, let them have them, but where communities do not want academies, let them keep what they have, build on the federation but have the resources that would otherwise go to the academy?

Jim Knight: I have met the hon. Gentleman and debated that issue with him on more than one occasion. He knows that our priority is to ensure that all children, including his constituents in Colchester, get the education that they need in order to prosper. Frankly, the results in some of the schools in Colchester are not good enough. We will do whatever it takes, including establishing academies if that is what is appropriate, working with the county council, to ensure that the young people whom he represents get a high-quality education.

David Taylor: The Office for Standards in Education has found on a number of occasions that Blackfordby St. Margaret's Church of England primary school in North-West Leicestershire is a good school with outstanding features and is popular with the local community that it serves. As a result, it is bulging at the seams. Can the Secretary of State discuss with me why the standards and diversity fund bid from that school to undertake major capital works that are highly desirable has been bounced back? It seems to fit the bill as a successful and popular school, particularly in relation to the restoration of the primary age range. I would like to have an opportunity to see either the Secretary of State or the Schools Minister as urgently as possible.

Jim Knight: Naturally, I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about the capital bid. We have been working on the primary capital programme in recent months to ensure that primary schools start to benefit from the sort of investment that we are seeing across our secondary school programme. We were delighted in September to be able to open 130 brand-new schools, some of which were primary schools, but I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to see whether more needs to be done in his constituency.

David Laws: In the Westminster Hall debate on Thursday on testing, the Schools Minister indicated that in 2010 key stage 2 and key stage 3 tests may not go ahead in their existing form. Is that also the view of the Secretary of State?

Edward Balls: I made it clear in my statement to the House back in July that the principle of externally marked national tests was very important and that it would be completely retrograde to go back to the old pre-test days when there was not proper information for parents on the performance of either their child or their primary school, but I said that the current system is not set in stone and that we were studying very carefully the Children, Schools and Families Committee report on testing and assessment, which we have been doing over the summer.

John Robertson: As chair of the all-party group on communications, I welcome the Government statement on home access grants. This will help families in the use of the internet, but, according to Ofcom, Glasgow has the lowest uptake of the internet in the whole country. Will my hon. Friend have a word with Ministers north of the border to ensure that the money they are given goes to the places where it is supposed to go, so that the children in my constituency can receive the same innovative resource as children in England?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of having home access to a computer. Currently, there are about 1 million children who have no access to a computer in the home, and they are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, which is reinforcing the attainment gaps. It is a great pity that the Scottish Executive have not yet followed our excellent example, and if they do not do so, I am sure that the voters of Glenrothes will take that into account on 6 November.

Nick Gibb: More than 90,000 students are still waiting to receive their education maintenance allowance. I listened very carefully to what the Secretary of State has said during this Question Time, but Liberata, the company to which the Secretary of State awarded the £75 million contract, had a well known poor track record, just like the company the Government contracted to administer the standard assessment tests; the Financial Services Authority described Liberata's record as reckless. Are not those 92,000 students owed an apology from the Secretary of State, and will he this afternoon commit the Government to an independent inquiry so that we can find out, yet again, what went wrong with the way in which his Department is administering its responsibilities?

Jim Knight: The company is a contractor to the Learning and Skills Council, so their relationship is a matter for them, but I am pleased, after the initial problems with the IT system and the helpline to which the Secretary of State referred, that the contractor has been able to apply resources so that the processing backlog, for example, has now decreased from 147,000 on 1 October to 111,000; that is making very significant progress in eating into what is a highly regrettable problem. The LSC, as the responsible agency, has apologised, and we welcome scrutiny of this, which is why we welcome the Select Committee's inquiry.

Hugh Bayley: The quality of schools depends primarily on the quality of teachers, and almost all of us remember one particularly good teacher who inspired us and gave us enthusiasm for a subject and self-confidence. Mark Barnett, the head of Westfield primary school in York, is that kind of teacher; he has just been declared the Yorkshire teacher of the year. Will the Secretary of State congratulate him, and will he tell the House what the Government are doing to train and incentivise more teachers to be as good as Mark Barnett?

Edward Balls: I am very happy to congratulate the head of Westfield primary school in my hon. Friend's constituency, and to mark the fact that he is the Yorkshire teacher of the year, and to regret only that the national teacher of the year did not come from Yorkshire—although I met the excellent teacher from Bath who won that award, and she was also a truly inspirational leader. We are doing everything we can through pay, but also through our new master's qualification and the expansion of Teach First, to encourage more of the best graduates to come into the teaching profession and also then to rise to headship. We will do everything we can, including through pay and incentives, to make sure that people such as my hon. Friend's constituent continue to do a great job for the children of our country.

Andrew Rosindell: Will the Secretary of State join with me in commending the work of children's centres and early years centres across the country, and will he reassure the parents, staff and children who attend those centres that they will not be subject to cuts and closures because of the current economic situation, and does he accept that the vital work they do is crucial for our communities and the future well-being of all our children?

Edward Balls: These are obviously difficult times, but it will be crucial to ensure that the investment in our children's future—in our schools and our children's centres—is properly protected. However, given that it is not the Labour party that is proposing to cut the Sure Start programme, the best way for us to ensure that those cuts do not happen is to do everything that we can to prevent the election of a Conservative Government, and that is what we will do.

Vincent Cable: Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern of many parents of children with special needs that the new draft regulations covering the tribunal system are legalistic and lawyer-intensive, and will deter many people? Will he meet a delegation of concerned groups to discuss how the regulations could be improved?

Edward Balls: I am very happy to meet a delegation. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Justice and myself have ensured that the regulations will not have those unintended consequences. Also, the Lamb review is considering how we can support parents of children with a special educational need more effectively in future. As well as a meeting with myself, I will organise for the hon. Gentleman and his constituents a meeting with Brian Lamb to discuss the work of his inquiry.

Financial Markets

Alistair Darling: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on this morning's announcement about the implementation of the proposals that I announced to the House last week. Again, I hope that the House will understand that it was necessary for me to issue a market notice this morning ahead of the opening of the markets.
	In my statement to the House last Wednesday, I outlined the principles of the Government's proposals to restore confidence in the banking system and put banks on a stronger footing, which are essential steps in helping the people and businesses of the country and supporting the economy as a whole. Since then, there have been intensive discussions with UK banks and institutions, and I can today tell the House how the principles set out last Wednesday are now being applied.
	I shall first remind the House of the three key elements of the measures that I outlined last week: first, to inject sufficient liquidity into the financial system now; secondly, to make available at least £50 billion of capital, should it be required, to recapitalise the UK banking system, and thirdly, to provide a guarantee on eligible new debt to support medium-term lending between banks. Those measures are aimed at unblocking the inter-bank lending system and strengthening UK institutions, so that banks can start lending to people again. That is necessary both to stabilise the banking system and to support the wider economy.
	No country alone can solve this global problem. At the weekend, at both the G7 Finance Ministers meeting and the International Monetary Fund, it was clear that the three elements of last week's proposals will be essential parts of a global recovery plan. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had discussions with European Union leaders, and they too agreed that this was the right way to stabilise and rebuild the banking system. Today—indeed, in the last hour or so—many European Union Governments have announced how they plan to support their financial systems. It is increasingly clear that the measures that I am announcing today form the basis of an international consensus on the right response to events.
	I shall set out to the House the detail of today's announcement, which covers both liquidity and capital. I turn first to the funding of the banking system, or liquidity. The Bank of England will continue to supply sufficient short-term funds, which from today will include unlimited dollar funds available to banks to be swapped for sterling funds, and continued loan operations through the special liquidity scheme.
	Additionally, I have announced today the details of the Government guarantee scheme for new lending between banks, an essential part of banks' resuming lending to people and businesses. The guarantee under the scheme will be provided by Her Majesty's Treasury directly. It will be temporary, covering new lending issued during a six-month period, but that period is renewable. It will be priced on commercial terms, which can be varied at the Treasury's discretion but will initially be set at a premium of 50 basis points above the recent average cost of default insurance for each of the participating banks. In other words, it is risk based.
	The guarantee scheme will be available only to those banks and institutions that participate in the Government's recapitalisation scheme, as I made clear last week. The banks taking part in the scheme are given the option of raising capital in the open market, in the usual way, or through the Government's bank reconstruction scheme. When raising capital through the reconstruction fund, the participating banks receive an investment from the Government in return for shares.
	Let me outline, in turn, the position of each of the eight major UK banks and building societies that agreed to the recapitalisation proposals last week. Santander has agreed to transfer £1 billion of capital to its UK operations. Barclays will raise more than £10 billion by next spring through a combination of preference and ordinary shares raised from private sources and other measures. HSBC announced last Friday that it will raise £750 million of new capital for its UK operation in the open market. Standard Chartered has announced that it has already met its agreed capital requirements, and Nationwide building society has announced that it will increase its capital base by £500 million.
	Let me now outline how HBOS, Lloyds TSB and RBS will be recapitalised through the bank reconstruction fund. Subject to take-up by existing shareholders, the Government will take significant shareholdings in these banks—in one case, a majority stake—and in line with normal commercial practices, the Government, on behalf of taxpayers, will have appropriate representation on their boards. These shareholdings will be managed on a fully commercial basis by an arm's length body with a precisely defined remit to act in the interests of taxpayers. Government support in respect of these three banks is tied to conditions covering executive pay and dividend policies, and conditions have also been agreed with them on the level of lending to small businesses and home buyers. We are making it clear that there will need to be a strong focus at these recapitalised banks on making available lending for small businesses and home buyers. These conditions are set out in the individual agreements with the banks, copies of which will be placed in the Library.
	In the case of Lloyds TSB and HBOS, the Government will purchase both ordinary and preference shares once the merger is complete. HBOS will receive up to an £8.5 billion investment in newly issued ordinary shares on completion of the merger. The Government will also invest up to £4.5 billion in newly issued ordinary shares of Lloyds TSB at completion. At the same time, we will invest up to an additional £4 billion in preference shares in the merged institution, with £3 billion of which being invested in HBOS and £1 billion in Lloyds TSB. In return for this investment, which potentially represents around 44 per cent. of the proposed merged bank, the Government will appoint two independent board members. No cash bonuses will be paid to any board member this year. Directors in HBOS will be asked to relinquish their rights to bonuses, and directors in Lloyds TSB will receive restricted stock instead of cash for any 2008 bonus entitlements. The availability of lending to home owners and small businesses will be maintained at at least 2007 levels, and greater support will be given to people experiencing difficulties with their mortgage payments to help them stay in their homes.
	For RBS, the Government will take up to £15 billion of ordinary shares and £5 billion of preference shares. This potentially represents a 63 per cent. interest in the bank, in return for which the Government will appoint three independent board members. Again, no bonus will be awarded to any board member this year, and any bonus paid next year will be in stock and linked to long-term growth in the bank. Mortgage and small and medium-sized business lending availability will be maintained at 2007 levels for the benefit of people up and down the country. These steps will help to put RBS on a stronger footing and allow it to build on its core retail banking operation.
	These announcements represent a total recapitalisation of just under £50 billion for the eight major banks, in line with my announcement last Wednesday, and, as I said then, more capital is available to smaller institutions should they need it. The Government do not want to run Britain's banks—we want to rebuild them. The long-term future of UK banks lies in the private sector, and we will aim to sell the public share in the participating banks as soon as is feasibly possible, but our objective today is to stabilise and rebuild, and we will maintain our stake for as long as it takes to do that.
	I want to say a few words about the Icelandic banks. I met the Icelandic Finance Minister in Washington at the weekend, and I made it very clear that it is imperative that we work together to resolve the position of creditors in this country. Our authorities have set up an arrangement, agreed in principle, for an accelerated pay-out to depositors, and we are also working with the Icelandic authorities to facilitate claims by UK charities and local authorities on their deposits held at these Icelandic banks. In addition, the Bank of England is today providing a short-term secured loan of up to £100 million to Landsbanki, to help maximise returns to UK creditors.
	All the operations of the bank reconstruction fund will give the Government a capital stake—an investment—so that money we borrow is exchanged for valuable assets, and because some of these shares are purchased on preferential terms the Government are better protected and get a better return. The Government guarantee to support new lending between banks will be charged on full commercial terms, ensuring that the taxpayer is appropriately rewarded. The injections of liquidity through the special liquidity scheme and other operations simply allow banks to swap securities with the Bank of England, so that the risk remains with the banks and not the taxpayer—in other words, we get the money back. So, any additional borrowing and debt incurred by the Government as a result of these proposals will be in return for assets, charged at commercial rates or in the form of a temporary loan to the banks. Therefore, as with the temporary nationalisation of Northern Rock, the most appropriate measures of Government borrowing and debt to judge the position of the public finances will be those that exclude the Government's stake in the banking sector.
	The principles that I announced last week are now being adopted across the major world economies, and it is essential that Governments work together, decisively and quickly, to stabilise the system today and to take action to prevent these problems from happening again in future. That is why we must work together to improve international supervision. Tomorrow, the House will debate the Second Reading of the Banking Bill, which is a further step towards making our system more robust.
	Today's announcement is necessary, and it is a significant step towards restoring confidence in the banking system and making it resilient in future. These proposals fully respect the rights of existing shareholders, and, despite current market conditions, the UK banking sector can have confidence in its future. These are very turbulent times in financial markets, but I believe that these measures are essential to stabilise the financial system and help the UK economy. We are committed to doing whatever it takes to stabilise the banking system, protect savers and taxpayers and support the wider economy, and I commend this statement to the House.

George Osborne: Once again, I thank the Chancellor for his statement. Given that the banking system has been on the verge of collapse, rescuing the banks and stepping in is the only option available to the country. We said that recapitalisation might be necessary, and we continue to offer to work constructively with the Government on solving this financial crisis and on the Banking Bill tomorrow.
	But, of course, the scale of what the taxpayer is on the hook for is only just starting to dawn on the British people: this is the biggest bail out in the world so far, paid for by the biggest increase in debt by any peacetime Government and funded by the £11,000 of extra borrowing that will now be heaped on every family in the country. The British people are therefore in no mood to celebrate. They want to know how their taxpayer money will be protected, how quickly they can get it back and how on earth they ended up footing the bill for this painful end to the age of irresponsibility.
	On the details of the deal, why, over the past week, does the Chancellor seem to have gone from favouring taking preference stock to deciding also to take huge ordinary share stakes in some banks? I know that last week he told us that he was "prepared to consider" underwriting share issues, but why has that now become the main option? What is his realistic assessment of how much of that shareholder offering will be taken up by existing shareholders and other private investors, rather than by the Government? Will he confirm that the preference shares he talks about do not come with warrants to give taxpayers more of the upside? Will he explain that?
	The Chancellor also seems to have rethought his position on taking seats on the boards of the banks we now part-own. Last week, at the Dispatch Box, he said:
	"In relation to Government nominees sitting in boardrooms, I never thought that a particularly useful course of action to follow".—[ Official Report, 8 October 2008; Vol. 480, c. 286.]
	He has just told us that he is appointing five members to two different bank boards. Why does he now believe that that is a useful course of action? I happen to agree that it is, but I want to know why —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must allow the shadow Chancellor to be heard.

George Osborne: I want to know why the Chancellor did not agree with himself a week ago.
	I welcome the statement that senior bank executives will not get cash bonuses. Last week, the Prime Minister dismissed that suggestion when it was made by the Leader of the Opposition, and he now appears to agree with it.
	May I press the Chancellor on the bonuses paid in stock that he talked about? I suspect that that will be an important matter of debate in the coming year. Given that two thirds of the bonuses paid to the RBS chief executive last year were in shares, not in cash, will that arrangement still be possible under the terms that the Chancellor has set out?
	As we said last week, the purpose of rescuing the banks is rescuing the economy. That means extending small business loans and getting families the remortgages they need, but it must not mean a return to irresponsible lending. The Chancellor did not say much in his statement about the lending conditions, but he said this morning that the banks have agreed to keep the availability of loans to homeowners and small businesses at 2007 levels. What exactly does he mean by "availability" in that context, given that the Royal Bank of Scotland issued a statement today saying that it was going to accelerate the de-leveraging? The Council of Mortgage Lenders has also said today that a return to 2007 levels would be neither "prudent or desirable".
	Finally, has the Chancellor had time to reflect on how a decade of Government economic policies has led us into this massive bail-out? The Prime Minister said today that, in future,
	"you have got to lay aside more for the possibility that there will be contraction."
	Is that another way of saying that he should have fixed the roof when the sun was shining? Is the Chancellor being straight with people about the potential risks to the public purse? He says that in effect he wants to suspend the borrowing rules and fiddle the figures so that these huge additional debts are not counted on the balance sheet. What sort of example does that set the rest of the economy? Will the Office for National Statistics agree with his decision not to count that as national debt?
	The chairman of the Financial Services Authority, Adair Turner, gave us his candid views on the lunchtime news today, saying that
	"many lessons have to be learned over what has gone on in the last ten years...we probably allowed a boom to go on for too long."
	Britain knows exactly who is to blame for that. We will support today's actions because, faced with the collapse of the banking system, the Government had no other option. However, this is no moment of triumph for the Government, because the British people have now been landed with the bill for the boom that turned to bust.

Alistair Darling: I notice that the shadow Chancellor is finding it increasingly difficult to maintain his stance of bipartisanship. In the course of the last year, I have noticed that he finds it impossible to avoid quickly getting into a situation where he seems more concerned with scoring points than with addressing what I think is quite a serious matter.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions, which I would like to answer. His first point was about the cost, and he appeared to be critical of the fact that we are making available substantial funds, although he accepts that that is necessary. A person either supports such a scheme or does not, and should do it properly, not in half measures. Indeed, if people have learned anything over the past year, it is that action should be taken decisively and quickly to ensure that the banks are properly capitalised.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the accounting. I said that accounting is a matter for the ONS—Northern Rock is classified with the public sector and the ONS will make its judgment in relation to RBS, HBOS and Lloyds TSB. It would be ludicrous, in reaching a judgment about the Government's fiscal position, to say that having to take such action with banks would distort decisions made about the economy in general. I would have thought that most people accept that as a sensible thing.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a couple of technical questions about preference and ordinary shares, and I would have thought that he is aware of this. I said last week that we wanted to take preference shares to secure the Government's interest and I also said that we would be prepared to take ordinary shares. Given the scale of what is necessary—particularly in relation to RBS, HBOS and Lloyds TSB—the balance has to be struck in a way that is workable. The advantage of preference shares is that we are repaid first, but if too many preference shares were put into an organisation it would impede its ability to get through this period and recover, so, acting on proper advice, we have sought the right balance between preference shares and ordinary shares.
	In relation to ordinary shares, we will get a dividend when dividends are payable, and when we sell our shares the money will come back to the taxpayer. We have put in place a perfectly sensible way of restructuring the banks because our objective is to help them get through this difficult period and in due course to sell on the shares.
	In relation to bonuses, yes, some board members and, indeed, other members of staff are paid in shares. I would have thought that the shadow Chancellor welcomes that because anything that ties the interests of senior management to the long-term health of a company must be a good thing. Indeed, we are trying to stop irresponsible remuneration, whereby people are encouraged to do something that damages the banks and, therefore, the rest of the financial system. What we are suggesting means that in future the rewards will be tied to the long-term interests of the bank.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about lending. I said today, and I said in the statement, that we want the availability of lending to be the same as it was in 2007, but of course that applies only to two particular institutions—RBS and Lloyds TSB-HBOS—because they are the only two using the bank reconstruction fund. That is where the conditionality attaches. We said that availability levels need to be the same, but it will of course be up to those banks to judge each application for a loan on its merits. We do not want to return to the irresponsible problems and difficulties we have had in the past.
	The Council of Mortgage Lenders put out a statement earlier today in which it had clearly misunderstood the position, but I understand that it is now correcting what it said in the light of what is actually the case rather than what it imagined was the case. The hon. Gentleman might like to follow that course of action on occasion, as well. However, I, too, am anxious to maintain the bipartisan approach that has worked with at least some success over the past few weeks. I think that the House and the wider country will recognise that, although it is difficult at times for people fully to understand what is going on, they understand that we had to take action, and that we had to do so decisively and in sufficient measure to make it work. There is more turbulence along the way, I am sure, but I believe that the measure is significant; it is a necessary measure and it will be seen not just in this country but across the world as entirely the right thing to do.

Vincent Cable: Last week, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I indicated our support for the broad outlines of the Government's approach. I particularly welcome what the Chancellor said about small business lending, stemming repossessions and bonuses.
	I share some of the concerns of the Conservative spokesman, which the Chancellor has partly answered, about the commitment to 2007 lending, even if it applies only to those three banks. It was the case that 2007 was the very peak of irresponsible lending, when mortgage lending was fuelling the unsustainable boom in house prices, and it clearly cannot continue.
	I welcome the Chancellor's modesty about the Government's ability to manage banks, but bankers were not very good at managing banks either, so now that Stalin in No. 10 has rediscovered his confidence I wonder whether this might be the time for a Beria in No. 11 to launch a purge of irresponsible bankers. The Chancellor might want to draft in some of the experienced, mutually governed building societies, which have not been seduced by the bright lights and profits of the City, to run some of those banking institutions.
	I welcome the return of sanity and co-operation among the developed countries after the chaos of last week and the beggar-my-neighbour policies they were starting to pursue. Now that the Government have demonstrated their influence with eurozone Finance Ministers, how will that influence be sustained, as the Chancellor is not a regular member of that group?
	In relation to the Group of Seven, why are the Chinese not involved, given that they are absolutely central to the issue, both as lenders of last resort to the United States and as a main source of growth? Were they not invited, or did they decline the invitation?
	Finally, I hope and suspect that we are in the darkest hour before the dawn, as regards this crisis, but I hope that the Government will not be carried along, as they have been before, by hubris and excessive self-confidence, and that they will recognise that we are entering a period of recession. There must be as much sensitivity to the needs of the large numbers of people who will be hurt by it as has been shown to the banks in recent days.

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right that we need to proceed with caution. I said that I thought that the step that we are taking is essential, because stabilising the banking system is a precondition of helping the very people whom he talks about. After all, we are helping people and businesses in this country and, through them, the whole economy. That is why we are taking this step.
	Last week, Members on both sides of the House said that one of the things that they wanted was the freeing up of lending to businesses and mortgage payers. Indeed, the shadow Chancellor mentioned that issue specifically. That is precisely what we have sought to achieve with the institutions with which we have these agreements. We are not saying that they should simply lend, willy-nilly, to anyone who turns up; that would be ludicrous. They must assess how much someone can afford to borrow, and whether there is adequate security. Banks have got to ensure that their lending is prudent and properly thought out, and the availability of funds will help. That is what Members on both sides of the House want, but nobody wants a return to the more irresponsible practices of the past.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about board membership. It is important that we nominate people who have the relevant experience and can bring their influence to bear. I have made this point before: the boards are the first line of defence, not just in preventing banks from getting into difficulties, but in the wider system.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman on co-operation among countries. We had extensive discussions at the G7 meeting in Washington over the weekend, and at the IMF. He asked about China; it is, of course, a member of the G20, which we will chair in the coming year. The governor of the Chinese central bank was present at the IMF discussions and, I think, at the G20 meeting.
	The hon. Gentleman made a point about the eurozone. Of course, we are not members of that group, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister addressed it yesterday, because it was recognised that Britain is an extremely important part of not just the European financial system, but the global financial system. It is quite right that our views are taken into account, and equally right that if we are to convince people that we need to act together, we need to be involved at every level. That is another advantage to our being fully involved in the European Union; I think that that is very important.

John McFall: I welcome the Chancellor's statement. The Treasury Committee has just returned from speaking to the Japanese authorities about what to do, and what not to do, in a crisis, in the light of their problems in the 1990s. Two clear messages emerged: first, clear and decisive action about investments is necessary, on which the Government are therefore to be congratulated today; and, secondly, early communication is essential if the public are to accept this investment in the banks, for their sake and that of the country. Will the Chancellor and his colleagues who represent the tripartite authorities accept my invitation to appear before the Committee and give more detail about the initiative, so that we can communicate it to the public, and it can therefore be accepted?
	Lastly, on recapitalisation, it is undoubtedly essential that the relationship between banks and the public as customers changes, and that banks face up to their new responsibilities. Does the Chancellor agree with that?

Alistair Darling: I do, and all of us know full well that people in this country, some of whom are finding times hard and have to count the pennies, are asking what is going on in the banking system. The problem is that if we do not have a banking system that works effectively, every one of us will suffer. A test that we have to apply to any measure is to ask what would happen if we did not take a particular course of action. If we had not taken the course of action that I set out last week, and that we have implemented today, it would have exacerbated an already difficult position, so my right hon. Friend is quite right about communications. As for his invitation to attend the Treasury Committee, I am always happy to do that, and no doubt we can discuss in the next few days when it might be best to do so.

John Redwood: Given that the three banks in which the Government are considering taking a public stake have combined assets and risks on their balance sheets of £3 trillion—twice our national income, and five times our tax revenue—does the Chancellor agree that it is very much in the taxpayer's interest that all men and women of good will should work to get the maximum amount of share capital and other sources of money from the private sector into those banks, to limit taxpayer risk?

Alistair Darling: I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right: we do need to work together, and that is something that I want to encourage.

Ruth Kelly: May take this opportunity—the first time that I have spoken from the Back Benches in many years—to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the calm, assured way in which he not only delivered his statement today but, together with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, has worked on the financial crisis over the past few weeks? I very much welcome his commitment in the statement to make sure that his intention was to stabilise the banking system and, in the long run, return to a well functioning, properly capitalised private banking system. Will he assure me and the House not only that he has been working on a strategy to inject capital into the banking system, but that he will turn his mind to a strategy to withdraw taxpayers' support over the longer term from the banking system?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her support, and I am sure that there are many of us on this side of the House who look forward to a time when she chooses to return to the Front Bench. In the meantime, I agree that it is important that we focus on the immediate step of ensuring that the banking system is stabilised. However, she is quite right that, in the long term, the banks are better off in the private sector, and that is something that we will need to manage. However, at the moment the key is to make sure that the banks are properly capitalised, get through this period and rebuild their strength, because that is the best way of ensuring stability.

George Young: Lloyds bank and HBOS have to make some difficult commercial decisions if the proposed merger goes through. Can we have an assurance that those will be taken on the basis of what is best for the bank and its customers, without any Government intervention?

Alistair Darling: The decision in relation to the merger was taken jointly by the boards of HBOS and Lloyds TSB. That remains the position. I have set out our view and the steps that we are taking in relation to the competition issue, but the decision to merge is a matter for those two boards and, ultimately, for their shareholders.

John Reid: The Chancellor and the Government have acted with clarity and decisiveness of action in the midst of this crisis, which is a sign of reassuring stability to the whole nation. As this is a wide, deep and ongoing problem, may I ask him whether he will continue to build alliances of that nature at home and abroad? Will he do so abroad with Governments of all different persuasions, and domestically with everyone inside and outside the Chamber who wants a solution to this problem? While I regret very much the fact that the Opposition spokesman appears to have lapsed from a consensual approach into a partisan one today, may I express the hope that that is temporary? Notwithstanding that, will the Chancellor continue to try to work with everyone on both sides of the House?

Alistair Darling: I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is important, on such an issue, and at a time like this, that we work together, both inside the Chamber and with everyone who has an interest in making sure that we get through an unprecedented period of instability. I also agree with him that it is important that the Government continue to work with people outside the House. Importantly, as many Members have said, we should remember first and foremost why we are doing so—to help the people and the businesses of this country.

Michael Fallon: Will the Chancellor confirm that Swedish taxpayers still own part of their bank 17 years after it was nationalised, so these things sometimes take a little longer than originally forecast? Will he also explain what degree of due diligence there is on behalf of the taxpayer in return for this very considerable investment?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that it will inevitably take time to work through this. What happened in Sweden, of course, is largely in relation to that particular country; this problem, however, has affected the whole world. Our objective needs to be clearly stated in relation to our long-term intentions. On due diligence, I should say that over the last few days we and our advisers have been in intensive discussions with the two banks concerned. As I think I said this morning, the FSA has taken what it regards as a cautious view, having regard to the difficulties faced in the economy now, as to what the liabilities of the banks might be. That is one of the reasons why the sums in relation to those two banks are higher than might have been anticipated.

Kelvin Hopkins: There is still a vast amount of toxic debt around. Will the banks not have to declare that on the balance sheet before total trust can be restored?

Alistair Darling: Banks here and all over the world are engaged in that process at the moment. As I have said on many occasions, one of the things that will help get us through this is when people have absolute confidence as to where everybody stands.

Jacqui Lait: The Chancellor indicated that some of the package will be paid for by borrowing. What is his assessment of the appetite of the markets for gilts and the level of interest that the taxpayer will have to offer to shift the gilts?

Alistair Darling: I did indeed indicate that some of what I am announcing today will be met by borrowing. The Government raise that money through their normal operations, and continue to be able to do so.

Jim Cunningham: When my right hon. Friend was having discussions with the bankers, was there any mention of the protection of pension funds? I hope that they were part of the discussions.

Alistair Darling: If my hon. Friend is referring to the staff employed by the banks, I should say that the banks themselves are responsible for that issue. The capitalisation that the Government are able to make available will enable the banks to continue. Obviously, they will have to make decisions themselves on how they restructure their business and proceed in future.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the Chancellor for his statement and advance notice of it. I repeat what we said last week: the whole House should have the right to hope and expect that the package will deliver confidence and stability and unfreeze the banking system. Many others have made the point that the Chancellor expects lending to small and medium-sized enterprises and mortgage lending to be at 2007 levels. Does he mean that on a cash basis or on a loan and mortgage application basis? More importantly, because we are now in a recession, demand may be reduced. Should there be a failure to meet the 2007 targets, can the Chancellor make it clear to the House and the financial markets that in no way would that be a measure of failure for the recovery plan?

Alistair Darling: As I said earlier, the agreement with those banks is that the availability of support for mortgage holders and small and medium-sized enterprises will remain at 2007 levels. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the package and hope that he will acknowledge that it is the very strength of the United Kingdom Government that has enabled us to take this action.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Chancellor agree that one of the most remarkable things in this time of adversity is that in the past few weeks it has become pretty clear that Governments around the world—left, right and sky-blue-pink—have come round to supporting this measure? Today, the Nobel prize winner Krugman said that the Brown Government have pointed the way for the rest of the world. Is that not in sharp contrast to the people opposite, who have come armed only with a "cunning plan"? Baldrick could have done better.

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

Peter Tapsell: May I remind the Chancellor, since to him it might seem a long time ago, that last Monday I urged him to cut interest rates as a supplementary measure to dealing with the problem of the under-capitalisation of our banks? He clearly agreed with me, because last Wednesday it happened. I put it to him that although all the measures that he has taken so far will obviously lead to serious inflation in the long run, in the short run the problem that we face is likely to be deflation. Will he therefore not just rest on his laurels with regard to interest rates? In 1931—when, by an unhappy coincidence, there was also a Labour Chancellor in charge, Philip Snowden—the decision was taken to reduce interest rates to 2 per cent., where they remained for nearly a decade and contributed in a major way to the recovery of our economy after that. Will the Chancellor go for really severe cuts in interest rates straight away?

Alistair Darling: I do remember what the hon. Gentleman said a month or so ago. I am sure that the decision taken by the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England was welcomed here, as was the co-ordinated decision right across the world, but that decision was of course taken by the independent Bank of England, and rightly so.

David Crausby: I was a Labour councillor in 1992, when the Bank of Credit and Commerce International went bust and the Government of the day left us to flounder. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that this Labour Government do a better job in protecting Tory councils than that Tory Government did in protecting Labour councils?

Alistair Darling: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the problems that have arisen as a result of the collapse of the Icelandic banks. As I said in my statement, and I think I said last week, we are having discussions with the Icelandic Government. I met the Icelandic Finance Minister at the weekend to try to resolve this matter. Today we have taken action through one particular branch of the bank to try to help businesses, and we will continue to do what we can. Last week representatives of the local authorities met my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government to discuss these things.

Peter Lilley: I wholeheartedly agree with the Chancellor's remark in response to an earlier question—that the principal lesson of the past year is that delay and indecision undermine the impact of measures when they are eventually introduced. Is not that even more true of a lack of detail? Will he issue to this House a detailed paper on all the decisions that have been taken and let us know, for example, what interest rate—what dividend rate as a percentage—he is charging on the preference shares for these banks?

Alistair Darling: As I said in my statement, I will arrange for copies of the agreements to be put in the Libraries of both Houses in the usual way.

James Plaskitt: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the decisive action that the Government have taken. Does he agree that some longer-term issues are coming out of this that are international in their dimension, and that we will need to see banks with strong capitalisation, less leveraging and increased transparency? Does he think that the right international institutions are in place to help us to achieve that, or must we do some additional work on that architecture?

Alistair Darling: Yes, we must. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has argued for the best part of 10 years that we need to ensure that the international institutions—the International Monetary Fund, for example—are reorganised to reflect properly the demands of the early part of the 21st century. They were brought into being at the end of the second world war when world leaders then realised that the IMF would be necessary. However, its role, while still very necessary, needs to adapt, and I think that it can play a greater role in relation to early warnings and greater supervision of problems that arise in the financial system. That is not the only thing that we need to do. We need to ensure that our regulatory bodies co-operate through the colleges of regulators that are now being set up, and other reforms will be necessary as well. We will face considerable difficulties if we do not recognise that in a global economy, a problem that in the past might have been confined to one state or one small part of the world can now spread to the entire world in a matter of weeks. That is why we need that international co-operation, which is so important.

Julia Goldsworthy: The Chancellor spoke of the in-principle arrangement that had been agreed in relation to depositors and the accelerated payout. He gave no such detail for local authority deposits. Can he please give us a bit more detail about how close he is to an agreement with the Icelandic authorities? What are the terms and time scale of any agreement that he is pursuing?

Alistair Darling: Discussions are continuing with the Icelandic authorities, but part of the situation will depend on what Iceland proposes to do, given its current problems. It needs to resolve the overall problems before it can deal with the particular ones, but that process is under way, and we have people engaged in discussions in Iceland at the moment.

Tony Wright: Everyone recognises that the Government are leading the world in their recovery plan to get us out of this mess. Could I ask the Chancellor to lead the world by putting in place an inquiry into the sort of reckless global financial system that has got us into this mess in the first place?

Alistair Darling: I have said for some time that we need to learn the lessons of what happened. Whether or not one can accomplish that in a single inquiry, I do not know, given that—of necessity—we would have to look at what was happening in just about every country in the world. There are perfectly obvious lessons that we can act on now. One of them relates to the beefing up of the supervisory regime, and the other, which is very clear, is that Governments can achieve an awful lot more when they act together quickly and decisively. That is what I hope we are in the process of achieving at the moment.

Charles Walker: Can we cut through the rhetoric and some of the political consensus? Can I tell the Chancellor how furious my constituents are at the moment? They have been led up the garden path by bankers, the regulators and this Government, and sooner or later, the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister are going to have to say sorry. A lot of good, decent, ordinary people are hurting as a result of the actions and failure of this Government.

Alistair Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that every one of us represents people who see what is going on and find it hard to understand how on earth some of the banks have got themselves into their current position. But what they expect the Government to do, and what they expect us as Members of this House to do, is to act together to sort things out, rather than engage in the usual Punch and Judy show, which does no credit to anyone in this House.

Paul Farrelly: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the action he has taken today. May I remind him of the old adage that when times are good, investment bankers take too much out, and when times are bad, they put absolutely nothing back in? One example is that of Mr. Bob Diamond, who heads Barclays investment banking division. He took £6.5 million as a performance bonus in cash last year, and more than £11 million in shares. I used to work for Barclays bank; it is not taking taxpayers' support today but may do so in future. It has also bought Lehman Brothers and a ring-fenced bonus pool on Wall street. Could I therefore ask the Chancellor to make sure that where bankers have taken out huge bonuses, they are encouraged to put them back in as fundraising, as an example to ordinary shareholders and the taxpayer? On the example of Barclays, would he agree that it would be obscene to pay out huge bonuses on Wall street when it has cancelled a £2 billion dividend that would have gone into the pension funds of many ordinary people?

Alistair Darling: As my hon. Friend says, Barclays has not taken funds from the bank reconstruction fund, so it would not be affected by the agreements to which I referred. However, Barclays will no doubt have heard what he said.

John Maples: The next Conservative Government are looking forward to selling back these shareholdings at a considerable profit. One of the things that might endanger that is a return to 2007 levels of mortgage lending. The Chancellor said that that applied only to RBS, HBOS and Lloyds, but those first two were the two worst offenders. I do not know whether the Chancellor is still a monetarist, but that year was the peak year of broad money growth at around 13 per cent., and if we return to that rate, these problems will return. I hope that he does not quite mean what he said in the press release.

Alistair Darling: As I have said on a number of occasions this afternoon, we want to ensure that the availability is there. But of course, we have to ensure that banks do not return to lending money when the person borrowing it has no prospect of meeting the payments or where the security will never be able to meet the value of the loan. Responsible lending is absolutely key to the institutions in question if they are to get through this period, and everyone knows that.

Gordon Prentice: Will our three board members at the Royal Bank of Scotland have the power of veto? Will we know when their views diverge from those of other members of the board?

Alistair Darling: Any director of any bank has exactly the same powers and responsibilities.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the Chancellor acknowledge that the demutualisation of many building societies and insurance companies in recent years has reduced the diversity of our financial institutions, causing many of them to overreach themselves? Given that the Scottish banking system is now majority-owned by the Government, will the Chancellor use his influence to keep HBOS and Lloyds TSB as separate institutions in order to maintain diversity, and to find new ways of building financial institutions that will not make the mistakes of the past?

Alistair Darling: No; I do not entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I do think that it is unfortunate, but I think I am right in saying that every building society that demutualised now either belongs to or has merged with someone else, or is not around any more. On the other hand, it has to be said that, if we look back to even a short time ago, the number of products available and the competition in the system were far greater than in the past. It is important that we have a proper, competitive mortgage market, but I do not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about Lloyds TSB and HBOS. That is a decision that the boards of those two companies have taken, and that is the right way to proceed. They need to take commercial decisions. Of course we will have directors on the boards, because of our very substantial financial stake, but people have tried in the past to ensure that the structure of the market and the number of people in it do not change, and it simply does not work.

Michael Meacher: Surely the purpose of taking public control of a bank should not merely be to stabilise it before returning it to the private sector? Should it not also be to tackle the fundamental causes of the present turmoil by changing the banking system's approach to speculative trading and to the use of hedge funds, derivatives, offshore accounting and securitisation, as well as to the obscure reporting of corporate risk and sometimes dodgy auditing? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the £50 billion of taxpayers' money will not be used purely to fund the bankers, and that it will be used to change the malign banking practices that have brought us to this pass?

Alistair Darling: The problems to which my right hon. Friend refers need to be addressed by the regulatory system, but it is regulatory reform that will do that, rather than the role of the individual directors of two banks. I agree with him, however, that many issues need to be addressed.

Bob Spink: I welcome the Chancellor's statement on the accelerated payouts to depositors in Icelandic banks. Will he try to put some kind of time scale on when British citizens might be able to get access to their individual savings in those banks?

Alistair Darling: There are two issues here. In relation to the financial services compensation scheme: yes, we have said that we will stand in the place of the Icelandic authorities for the retail depositors who will be covered by the scheme, and I would like to ensure that those payouts take place as quickly as possible. In relation to a broader resolution with the Icelandic Government: yes, I would like that to be resolved quickly too, but that will also involve the Icelandic Government addressing some of the fundamental problems that Iceland now faces.

Clive Efford: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the prompt action that he took following the collapse of Northern Rock, in passing the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008. That gave him the powers that have enabled him to introduce this rescue package for the banks. I wonder what has given him the greatest sense of relief: the fact that the House passed that legislation in the face of opposition from the Conservatives, or the respect and support that he has received from the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Chancellor.

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right. Without the Banking (Special Provisions) Act, which the House passed in February, we would have been in an extremely difficult position, because we would not have been able to bring about many of the solutions that we have put in place over the past few weeks. That is why I very much welcome cross-party co-operation. There are lessons to be drawn from February. Of course there is a place for proper scrutiny and constructive criticism, but I hope that, in relation to the Banking Bill, we will get that cross-party support, not least because we need the legislation to be on the statute book by the time the Banking (Special Provisions) Act lapses in mid-February next year. I very much welcome the offer of support that has been given—I am quite convinced that that was done in good faith—by those who speak for the Opposition parties.

Peter Viggers: Does the Chancellor agree that the nearest parallel to the present situation is that of Lloyd's of London in the 1990s, when a cycle of inter-trading by dealers resulted in all the assets being regarded as suspect and tainted? Is he aware that Lloyd's of London resolved the problem by identifying and isolating the so-called tainted assets so that the purged body could move on, and that it is in such a purged body that new investment would best be made?

Alistair Darling: I do remember the problems at Lloyd's in the early 1990s, and I know that they were the subject of much debate in the House at the time. I also know what solution was pursued. The problems then applied to Lloyd's of London, but today's problems are much more widespread, so the scale of the problem is much greater. The measures on capitalisation that we are proposing address the problem, albeit in a different way.

Laura Moffatt: Has my right hon. Friend made an assessment not just of the innovative deal that is allowing the country to move forward with its banking, but also of the Government's adoption of a leadership role in the world? What benefits will that give to hard-pressed mortgage payers and our business community, which is struggling to act? Will he explain how our leadership role will help to stabilise our communities?

Alistair Darling: The answer is, as everyone knows, that this problem is affecting every part of the world. The problem started in the American sub-prime market last year; it spread within weeks to this country and it has subsequently affected every other country. Even countries that believed that they did not have a problem can now see that they are being affected by it. A global problem needs a global solution, but we will play our part here in the UK. We have been anxious to take action, together with other countries. There has been no reluctance on the part of others. At the weekend, I was struck by the fact that many Ministers recognised that they, too, needed to take action. In some ways, the challenge for everyone is to make sure that we stay ahead of all this. Some things that might have been unthinkable even a month ago, and certainly six months ago, need to be thought about now because they may actually provide a way through.

James Paice: The Chancellor is obviously very unhappy about how banks have allowed domestic debt to rise over the last decade or so to exceed £1 trillion. Is he equally unhappy about the fact that his predecessor did nothing about it?

Alistair Darling: I am always intrigued at the line that the Conservatives take on this. If they want to restrict personal debt, there are two ways of doing so: one is to ensure that loans are priced at such a level that people cannot get them, and the other is rationing. I know that the Conservative party is much more interventionist now than it was just a few weeks ago, but that strikes me as odd. There are two other points to bear in mind. Yes, people did borrow more, not only because rates were lower but because their assets had increased in value. The central point is surely this: do we not need to ensure that whatever lending takes place is sensible, prudent and sustainable from both the borrowers' and the lenders' point of view?

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Chancellor accept that because of the banking crisis, many of my constituents are deeply anxious about their financial future? They say to me, "Sir Nicholas, I hope that those who are responsible within the banking system will not benefit from the rescue package." They also tell me that they hope that the world, let alone this Chamber, the House of Commons, will be united in what needs to be done until the financial crisis is ended and stability and confidence are restored. Does the Chancellor agree?

Alistair Darling: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman commands such respect and affection in his constituency—and I agree with what he says.

Elliot Morley: I very much agree with bodies such as the Engineering Employers Federation that the Government have taken bold and decisive action in dealing not only with the financial system, but with industry and manufacturing industry in particular. I ask the Chancellor to keep a close eye on the need of some manufacturing sectors, particularly capital-intensive sectors such as steel, for funds to be available for essential investment.
	I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's comments on the Icelandic situation—I very much support the steps that he is taking—but my own council, North Lincolnshire, is one of those affected. He will understand that there is great concern about the £5.5 million, which it cannot access.

Alistair Darling: My right hon. Friend has raised that matter with me and quite rightly he is concerned about the position that his council faces. I refer him to what I have said a couple of times this afternoon: we need to resolve this matter, and I hope that we can make some progress. The discussions that I had with Iceland's Finance Minister were constructive. That is the best way to resolve the problem, so that we can ensure that people in the UK are not cut off from whatever Iceland's Government are doing within their own borders.
	On the general points made by my right hon. Friend, I come back to a point that has been raised many times this afternoon. Yes, we want to try to get back to a situation in which businesses can borrow from banks and banks feel confident to lend to them. Two things are necessary: we have to get through the blocking up of lending, which is what today's measures are designed to help with—it will take time, but it is an essential step—and we must ensure that we support the economy at this time, which we fully intend to do.
	Our economy has grown strongly for the past few years. Obviously, like the economies of other countries, our economy is slowing down, but we want to get through this period because that is the best way to support businesses, including the steel industry, in the longer term.

Susan Kramer: Over Thursday and Friday, I talked with a number of small businesses in my constituency. Many businesses that historically have never had lines of credit need them now because their customers are paying late, but those businesses know that they will not be attractive to the banks as customers. Will the Chancellor please give the banks a kick up the backside to ensure that they help companies of that kind, which are in difficulty only because of a situation generated by the banks themselves?

Alistair Darling: I said last week that I hoped that banks would remember that, just as in the good times, when they go out trying to get as many customers as possible, they need to be good to their customers when times are more difficult.

Rob Marris: Well, it is Baroness Margaret Thatcher's birthday today and Labour is nationalising banks—oh happy days! My understanding is that, this morning, the Royal Bank of Scotland was worth considerably less than £20 billion. Can my right hon. Friend explain why the Government are paying £20 billion for 63 per cent. of something that was worth a lot less than £20 billion?

Alistair Darling: First, the share price of banks and companies varies from day to day. We believe that this level of recapitalisation is necessary and that it is the right thing to do. I am determined to see it through.

Points of Order

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. John Maples.

John Maples: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Documents published this weekend under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 show that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) and I were deliberately misled in the House in November 1997 by the then Prime Minister about the Ecclestone affair. The documents show that the Prime Minister had decided on 16 October of that year to seek a derogation for Formula 1 from the tobacco advertising ban. That was immediately after he had met Mr. Ecclestone. In answer to us, the former Prime Minister stated that no decision had been made on 16 October.
	The House must assert its right to truth from Ministers. Can you, Mr. Speaker, tell me how we can amend our rules to achieve that? I urge you to give us a lead in this matter so that we can insist on full and truthful answers from Ministers and a sanction against those who mislead us.

Peter Luff: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and I would know what to do were the gentleman in question still a Member of the House. That is not the case, so it is all the more important that the record be corrected. Even if you cannot rule in detail today on how we can go about that, will you please set up a review of the rules to ensure that errors of this kind made by former Members of the House, probably deliberately, can be corrected? This is a matter of the utmost importance.

Mr. Speaker: I have been advised often that the content of a reply is not a matter for the Chair, but I am deeply concerned that two hon. Members have said that they were deliberately misled, albeit that the person concerned is out of the House. I suggest that, to pursue the matter, both hon. Members write to me and I will ask my officials to look into the content of the letter.

Promoting Democracy and Human Rights

[Relevant document: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Report 2007-08, Cm 7398.]

Caroline Flint: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of promoting democracy and human rights.
	Foreign policy has traditionally been associated with the peace, security and prosperity of this country. It is about all those things, but the title of today's debate reminds us that it is also about people. Much of the work done by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence, our partners in foreign policy, is about improving the lot of people, wherever they are in the world. Our work to promote democracy and to further human rights goes to the heart of that. It is quite a challenge. We need to change the minds and behaviour of other Governments, and we need to challenge the most intimate political relationship—that between a state and its people.
	We do this because a democratic rules-based world will benefit Britain and British people as they go about their daily lives, whether in business, on holiday or simply as taxpayers financing our contributions to military and development missions abroad. We can do that work bilaterally, and we do. In many cases, our human rights work is fundamental to achieving our departmental priority, whether it is climate security or stopping arms proliferation, but—and this is unique in today's era—we also have the ability to work with international partners, so a crucial part of our strategy is to make international institutions work better.
	As Minister for Europe, I want to start with the European Union. I know that my predecessor, along with many other Members, has spent months thinking about the institutional questions facing the European Union. I hope that, during my time as Europe Minister, we can move on from that to concentrate on how the European Union can improve not just the lives of its own citizens, but those of the many millions on the borders of the EU who do not yet enjoy the standards, rules and rights—the simple democracy—that we have here.

John Redwood: Does the Minister think it is democratic for Ministers to meet behind closed doors and agree laws that are then binding on the House, and for the House to have no right to amend or negate them?

Caroline Flint: I think that one aspect of the Lisbon treaty is how it improves the role of Parliaments in playing a constructive part in the laws that support all of us who live in the European Union. I think that part of our task is to ensure that those accountability networks work well, that there is more transparency and, of course, that people, in whichever EU country they reside, understand the added value—on top of our national endeavours—that supports their needs.

Peter Bone: I entirely agree with what the Minister is saying. Does she think that it is now a good idea for us to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, so that we have full transparency in this country?

Caroline Flint: I believe that the Lisbon treaty is good for the United Kingdom and good for Europe. This Parliament approved the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, which implements the Lisbon treaty in UK law, after detailed debates that took place over 25 days. Twenty-three countries have now completed their parliamentary approval of Lisbon. I know that there is more to be done, but in the meantime there is much relating to democracy and human rights on which we continue to work and make progress.

Daniel Kawczynski: rose—

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Caroline Flint: I will give way once more on this point. I should like the debate to be about more than just the Lisbon treaty. I give way—

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Caroline Flint: No. I am sorry. I give way to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski).

Daniel Kawczynski: The Minister is absolutely right to say that there needs to be more accountability and transparency on the part of the European Union, but does she not agree that part of the problem is the way in which Members of the European Parliament are elected, under the proportional representation system? The fact that they look after huge regions makes them less relevant and less accountable to their constituents.

Caroline Flint: The task of all elected representatives—councillors, Members of Parliament and MEPs—is to find different ways to connect with their constituents and electorate. That is something that we must work towards. However, part of what we can also achieve is ensuring that the institutions of the European Union are simpler and more streamlined. I believe that that will help all of us who represent constituents in one way or another to make a better case for many of the achievements with which the European Union is enabling us to make progress for the families and individuals whom we represent.
	For all the scrutiny and pressure that we rightly put on the EU to deliver, we should not forget that we are lucky to live in a political space that routinely respects our human rights and welcomes our diversity. We take Europe's rule of law, its thriving civil society and the accountability of its Governments for granted, but many millions around the world do not. People on the edges of the EU are clamouring to get in.

Shailesh Vara: rose—

Caroline Flint: I will make a little progress, and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	In countries further afield, people can see the attraction of the EU: a rich, prosperous area where states' powers are controlled, people can live their lives freely and people's rights are respected. I think that the EU is a powerful illustration of the fact that life is better in a democracy.

Shailesh Vara: The Minister will be aware that the Lisbon treaty proposes that, instead of having one commissioner in charge of foreign affairs and another in charge of international development, there should be only one commissioner, dealing with both foreign affairs and international development. Does she not agree that that will subordinate the interests of international development, because whenever there is a crisis, the one commissioner will give preference to international and foreign affairs, rather than the international humanitarian need

Caroline Flint: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I said that I did not want this debate to be dominated by the Lisbon treaty, given the many hours that the House and the other place have spent on it. However, I would say this in response to his point. As I have said, the Lisbon treaty provides a simpler, more streamlined EU. There will also be a new system of voting that is more strongly based on population size, and the UK's share of votes in the Council of Ministers will increase by 50 per cent. As we develop in respect of enlargement, of course we have to look at the different structures and at how they operate, but I think that the Lisbon treaty takes us some steps forward.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	Most Governments in the world want something out of the EU: better access to the world's largest market, or a bigger slice of the world's largest development budget. Those can be powerful levers to start a human rights dialogue. The EU's flagship policy to promote democracy is enlargement, which holds the perhaps unique distinction of being the only EU policy that the House has consistently supported. I hope and am confident that that support will remain. The EU is the only international organisation with the ability to transform its own neighbourhood. I would like to highlight some successes of enlargement.
	The House is well aware that enlargement has been an economic success, creating more jobs and high growth in both old and new member countries. Enlargement has increased our weight in the world and helps us to deal with the challenges of globalisation, from climate change to the current economic crisis. Enlargement is our most powerful tool for supporting democracy and respect for human rights across Europe. The Mediterranean accessions in the 1980s successfully anchored then fragile democracies in Greece, Spain and Portugal. The last enlargement reunited a Europe that had been divided by the cold war, and supported the growth of democracy from the ashes of totalitarian states, some with a truly dreadful human rights record. Today, the prospect of enlargement is a powerful incentive to improve human rights and governance in those countries that want to join the EU.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the point about post-Soviet states, can she reassure the House that the brutal regime of President Lukashenko in Belarus will not be rewarded for an election that has yet again not returned any opposition member of parliament, and that there will be a clear and unequivocal message from Her Majesty's Government that bad behaviour in Belarus will not be rewarded?

Caroline Flint: I will come to Belarus later in my speech. I will deal with that point then, if I may.
	As I said, the prospect of enlargement is a powerful incentive. Turkey is making progress. The death penalty has been abolished. Access to Kurdish language media has improved, including programming by the state broadcaster. Concerns over freedom of expression have started to be addressed by reform of the penal code. A zero-tolerance approach to torture has been adopted,. The number of women in the Turkish Parliament doubled in the 2007 elections.
	Thanks to EU pressure, the victims of Srebrenica have finally seen Radovan Karadzic arrive in The Hague, with the UK at the forefront of those who called for progress on accession to be linked to co-operation with the international tribunal.
	Of course challenges remain in the Balkans and in Turkey. In Turkey, the EU has made it clear that reforms are still needed to consolidate progress on basic freedoms such as freedom of expression as well as minority, ethnic and religious rights, but those issues will be addressed because those Governments know that there is a real prospect of EU membership.

John Greenway: The Minister cites the improved human rights record of countries such as Turkey and other countries in eastern Europe. Does she not acknowledge that much of that improvement stems from their membership of the Council of Europe and that the prospects of their joining the EU in the foreseeable future are pretty slim? On enlargement, does she agree that the Council of Europe's neighbourhood policy is the most effective way of monitoring the human rights record of applicant countries, not anything done in Brussels?

Caroline Flint: I respect what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I shall refer to the Council of Europe later. I commend it on its work—particularly, to cite one example, regarding the abolition of the death penalty in many countries. I hope that he agrees that this is not a competition with other organisations, but is about how we can best work together from our own vantage point to get the best value possible out of promoting a democratic and human rights agenda. He is absolutely right to commend the Council of Europe, but there are other organisations that also play their role.

Gordon Prentice: My friend has been speaking about Turkey. There are 44 majority-Muslim countries in the world, and yet only a handful—maybe three or four—are functioning democracies as we would understand that term. Why is that the case?

Caroline Flint: There are many different reasons, as my hon. Friend is aware. All I have to say in response is that we make sure these issues are raised with each and every individual country with which we engage on human rights, and we look for different ways in which we can influence those countries to make progress. There is no one blueprint; we have to acknowledge the situations we find ourselves in with these countries, and their alliances, but importantly we never give up on trying further to progress a human rights agenda. That is at the heart of what we do; it is not an add-on or an either/or in the work we carry out.
	Progress on Turkey's EU accession is also highly dependent on progress on a Cyprus settlement. I was therefore delighted to be able to signal the UK's commitment to a united and indivisible Cyprus by visiting the island in my first few days in this job last week, and to encourage both leaders to make progress. I have heard this afternoon—I am not making any claims on this—that, as well as agreeing a helpfully ambitious timetable for the next round of talks, both leaders have announced the cancellation of the regular military exercises and parades that were due to take place later this month and in November. I hope that the House will agree that this is a very positive development that shows what can be achieved through trust and co-operation. I encourage the leaders to continue to conduct their negotiations in the same constructive manner.

Ann Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Turkey is the only member of the Council of Europe where crimes of honour—forced marriages and so forth—take place within the indigenous community? In all the other Council of Europe member states, they usually take place within immigrant communities. Will she talk about the eradication of forced marriages and other crimes of honour in this country?

Caroline Flint: I commend my hon. Friend on the work she has done in relation to forced marriages and crimes of honour. I am keen to look at all these areas in my post as Minister for Europe, and also to address them with my other colleagues who work in these important areas. There are different examples of progress having been made, such as the understanding by our postings overseas of how important these issues are. As well as looking to domestic policy, we must look at our opportunities on the global stage to deal with such actions, which go against the basic human rights that women in particular should have access to.
	In July, the EU launched an initiative for a union of the Mediterranean to strengthen our support for reform in the region, and last month the European Council recognised that, in response to recent events, the EU needed to step up its relations with our eastern neighbours. Throughout the region, people share our values and aspire to our model of democracy. Ukraine is making the fastest progress. The traditions of democracy are building strong roots with every election. As the Foreign Secretary set out in August in Kiev, we believe Ukraine should be able to become a full member of the EU when it meets the criteria, but we also need to embed, outside elections, democratic processes in the fullest sense.
	This autumn, the Commission will make recommendations for a new eastern partnership. We want that to be ambitious and to recognise the European aspirations of our neighbours, and to strengthen our practical support for democratic and economic reform. These actions are a sign that the EU is becoming less preoccupied with its own structures and more interested in the outside world—a stance the UK has shaped and supported.
	The EU is also supporting new democracies and helping to construct civil societies in countries that have little tradition of dialogue. In Georgia, EU monitors have been deployed to support the peace agreement, and the Russian troops have moved back. Many EU missions help develop the rule of law, which is vital for sustainable security and economic growth. In Kosovo, the EU has more than 2,000 experts working with local police, customs and justice professionals.
	The neighbourhood is the first step, but not the only one. The EU's foreign policy is what we can make it. For example, in the past year we have pushed the EU to take strong stances against the repressive regimes in Zimbabwe and Burma. I want it to be more decisive, able to act more quickly and more proactive in spotting potential human rights concerns before they become full-scale problems.
	Of course, we should not forget the impact that the EU can have on the world's development through trade. The crippling slowness of the Doha round is preventing many of the world's citizens from gaining access to global markets and the benefits that that can bring their development. The EU, the world's largest trading bloc, must push to break the deadlock and secure an ambitious outcome to the talks.
	The EU has at its heart a commitment to democracy and human rights. I hope that we will have the scope and opportunity in the House and in Brussels to debate the EU's role as a champion of human rights and to encourage stronger action in that direction. However, the EU is not the only international organisation. The 60th anniversary of the United Nations declaration of human rights will take place in December. It is a reminder that some values and aspirations are universal and that states can come together and agree a set of common standards. Those standards, in turn, have been codified into a series of legally binding obligations. "Obligation" is a serious word, meaning something more than an aim or aspiration. The older UN texts, such as the convention on torture and the international human rights covenants, and the newer texts are binding on the states that have ratified them. That means that all of us, the UK included, must respect them.
	Of course, it is tempting to set out in this debate the large raft of legislation flowing from our international commitments that is before us in the UK at any one time, but this is a debate on foreign policy so I shall stick to the rest of the world. Another hugely significant aspect of the legal framework set out in the UN and other places is that it opens each of us to the scrutiny of other states party to the treaties. Without that scrutiny, the many pages of promises would be worthless. We in the UK support more action to monitor countries' performance on human rights, for example in the UN Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. Unfortunately, that work can be undermined if it is seen simply as a process of recrimination and of putting country X in the dock. Sometimes that may be necessary, but rarely. The vast bulk of countries, the UK included, benefit from discussion about the merits of their domestic legislation and, importantly, their actions.

Mike Gapes: May I be the first Labour Member to welcome my right hon. Friend to her post? She referred to the UN Human Rights Council. Does she agree that progress in that organisation has been very disappointing? A bloc of countries seems to be operating as an "axis of sovereignty", as some people have called it, and blocking the universal implementation of the international human rights standards. In the 60th anniversary year of the universal declaration, it is deplorable that a number of countries, including some democratic countries, are not prepared to adopt those universal standards.

Caroline Flint: I take this opportunity to commend my hon. Friend for his work on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The United Nations does a great deal that is good, but it must also be open to scrutiny and reform. That is why the monitoring and scrutiny of individual countries, including our own, in relation to the conventions and treaties that we sign up to, is an important part of maintaining pressure to turn signatures into action. That commends the organisation and gives it a lease of life in the 21st century that is appropriate to the challenges and difficulties that we face today.

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) made an important point, to which the Minister has not fully responded, about the performance of the new UN Human Rights Council. It was supposed to be a fresh start for the UN in tackling human rights abuses, but so far it has shown all the signs of replicating the bad old ways of the old UN Commission on Human Rights. What can the Minister say to reassure the House that she has some clear ideas about how to improve the effectiveness of that new UN body?

Caroline Flint: A week into the job, I am on a learning and listening exercise, but we are committed to enabling the Human Rights Council to work well. We are one of its 47 members, and we are active in all other areas of the UN that deal with human rights. We welcome the appointment of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, and we actively support such work, but we have to look at how this works in practice. The UN and the EU are different organisations, and I and other Ministers will continue to look at them to see how best we can make sure that the various structures work as well as they possibly can.
	We often need to remember that human rights work involves more than the few very badly performing states; it is as important to focus on the countries that are in transition and committed to the rule of law, but which need assistance to get there. Building democracy is a slow, painstaking process, but we have had some successes. In Bangladesh, for example, the Department for International Development contributed to a project to create a state-of-the-art register for 80 million people, complete with photos and fingerprints. We did that in just 15 months, so I say well done to all those involved. The result is that in August, there were peaceful and successful local elections with a turnout of some 80 per cent; importantly, that included a high turnout of women and minorities within the community.
	The frameworks, conventions and declarations on human rights therefore form the backbone of the international system. It is the responsibility of our generation to ensure that they are more than pieces of paper, and that they are genuine commitments backed up with action—a point reflected in the interventions today. We also need to ensure that the UN General Assembly is more than a talking shop. When the UN works it is a powerful instrument for good, as the recent success on the arms trade shows—how many lives will be saved because of this piece of paper?—but these successes must become more frequent and more assured. We want to reform the international system to ensure that the words are matched with actions.

Shailesh Vara: Does the Minister agree that although it is one thing to bring about more democracy in countries that require it, it is also important that we concentrate on those that might start going backwards? We should consider the recent example in Kenya. We have to be vigilant and ensure that, where the torch of democracy is lit, it does not die away.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The fact is that democracy and human rights are an issue that is never over. As well as the countries that are often pointed out as the worst examples regarding a lack of democratic institutions and the infringement of human rights, there are many that are perhaps in between—in a state of transition—and where, when progress is made, things happen that put it back. I am afraid that human rights and democracy are not an issue on which we can tick the box and say, "Job done". This is a continuing engagement that will task the minds of all of us here today, and of generations to come.
	Mention was made of other organisations. The Council of Europe, in the UN vein, produces human rights norms for the whole of Europe. As I said earlier, more than any other actor it has succeeded in eradicating the death penalty in Europe. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is another important part of Europe's human rights architecture, particularly in its election monitoring. The European Court of Human Rights, by giving individuals the power to petition the Court directly, holds Governments directly to account, but it is increasingly becoming the victim of its own success. As its case load has grown, so have the delays in making judgments. That problem must be addressed.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister not acknowledge the difficulties that some people have in petitioning the court because of obstruction in their own countries? For example, some of those whom many of us would regard as political prisoners in Russia are finding it increasingly difficult to get justice there or to take their case to the ECHR; sometimes, their lawyers are even murdered, or are intimidated and will not take the case forward. What is the UK doing to try to help the Council of Europe resist such manipulation?

Caroline Flint: We are a positive and strong supporter of the Court and we would seek in whatever ways we can to support the implementation of its powers, but where we can we do raise in different ways with different countries issues associated with human rights and individuals. This is about making sure that these institutions work for the purposes they were set up for, but I am happy to look into the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made in order to see what else we are doing, and to write to him.

Tim Boswell: First, will the Minister undertake to give personal attention to the question of resourcing the ECHR in view of the work load, which, as she said, is rising exponentially? Secondly, given that President Medvedev has indicated a wish to rebuild where some recent difficulties have occurred in bilateral and multilateral relations, can she put all possible pressure on him to encourage the state Duma to ratify protocol 14, so that we can get a better process in the Court and get the backlog tackled?

Caroline Flint: I note the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I shall look into those matters. We clearly want to ensure that we can build relations with Russia. Recent actions, in many respects, isolate Russia. We do not want to isolate Russia; we very much want to build our relationship with that country.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; she is being very generous. She mentioned dialogue with other countries. What dialogue has been held with the Government of India following the murderous events of the past two or three weeks in the state of Orissa? Although India might be the world's largest democracy, what has happened over the past few weeks is not necessarily a sign that it is the world's most mature democracy. Allowing freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a sign of maturity, and I hope that the Minister will send the strongest signal to India that this sort of behaviour in respect of religious minorities is not acceptable.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman makes an important contribution. We welcome the Indian Prime Minister's unequivocal statements condemning the continued violence against Christians in Orissa, the most recent of which was made on 29 September, following the EU-India summit. We urge the Government of India to uphold the right to freedom of religion and to bring to justice those responsible for attacks against people of all religions in India. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with any more detail that I can provide on that issue.

John Hemming: I thank the Minister for giving way on this particular point, because the right of individuals to petition the European Court of Human Rights is very important. In the past couple of months, I have been contacted by the Advice on Individual Rights in Europe—AIRE—centre, which assists people from England and the United Kingdom generally in going to the ECHR. The AIRE centre was concerned that the paperwork necessary for people to petition the European Court was not being provided—I am talking about family law, which the Minister will not be surprised to learn is one of my interests. Is there someone in the Government who would assist a petitioner who is being refused their documentation and thereby being prevented from going to the European Court?
	Secondly, although it has signed it, the UK is one of the few countries not to have ratified protocol 4 to the European convention on human rights. That protocol means that one cannot take somebody's passport off them. Is there a reason why the UK continually fails to ratify that protocol? Does the Minister feel that it is acceptable that somebody is banned from leaving the country in that way?

Caroline Flint: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me; I am happy to write to him shortly on those two rather detailed points. It is important that we discuss these issues and that any constituents' concerns can be followed up.
	I would like to pay tribute to the work of our other partners, such as the Commonwealth, which promotes human rights standards across its membership, and non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Those organisations demonstrate that work to promote democracy and to protect human rights goes on at two levels; it addresses the need to change a Government's policy, and the need to protect individuals. Our bilateral action on human rights is a combination of those two approaches. The internal legal framework is the foundation of all our bilateral work on human rights. We feel that we have a legitimate right to encourage countries to sign up to these texts and a legitimate right to be concerned when they fail to meet their international obligations. Although the rights themselves are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, there are many different routes towards honouring the commitments.
	Some lessons stand out. Conflict situations put pressure on human rights. That is equally true for countries trying to protect their citizens from terrorism as for countries in the grip of a civil war, but there is no one hard and fast rule to address every human rights issue relating to conflict and counter-terrorism. For example, the conflict in Sudan—the site of whole-scale atrocities, gender-based violence, child soldiers and displacement—is different in nature from the lethal violence employed in the Palestinian dispute or from the US detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. What those issues have in common is that we are engaged on them all, trying to figure out the best route to achieve our aims. In the US, we have had serious discussions with the Administration on all aspects of counter-terrorism and human rights issues, including rendition, Guantanamo Bay and the handling of detainees. The US is well aware of our views on water-boarding, for example, and has actively engaged in a dialogue with us on the issues. That frank approach helped secure the release in 2004 and 2005 of all nine of the British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay as well as four individuals who had formerly resided lawfully in the UK. Continued close co-operation with the US is critical to our ability to counter the threat posed to the UK by global terrorism. Dialogue on the importance of human rights to our counter-terrorism efforts is a critical part of that.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Minister mentioned Sudan, and we have debated the humanitarian situation in Darfur for a long time now. The Prime Minister promised us an initiative on the matter in the UN some six months ago, yet I see little progress. I visited the camps in Darfur, and the situation there is one of the most appalling that I have ever seen around the world. Will the Minister say whether a Minister in her Government has recently met the President of Sudan to tackle him directly over those barbaric atrocities?

Caroline Flint: I will provide the hon. Gentleman with details about who has met whom and where. In Sudan, aside from the considerable humanitarian support that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge is offered by DFID, we see that the best route to success lies in a permanent peace settlement. That will not come about because the UK says so, so we need to work within the UN to achieve it. That can be frustrating, and I hear that in his remarks. It can be slow, but it is the way most likely to end not only the conflict but human rights abuses.
	The middle east peace process has for a long time been at the top of UN agendas, but the EU is also playing an important role, particularly on security sector reform. The EU, for example, leads on building capacity for the Palestinian civil police.

Tony Baldry: Before we move on from Sudan, let me point out that Darfur shows the fragility of the international community's ability to support the emerging norm of the international community's responsibility to protect. The matter is not just about the failure of the Security Council to enforce that; the international community does not have the military lift capacity to do so either. We are hoping that things in Darfur will not get worse and that something will turn up. There is no UN peacekeeping force in Darfur, effectively, and there is no real process in Darfur. The responsibility to protect is just being forgotten.

Caroline Flint: It is not forgotten. I acknowledge how frustrating and difficult the process is. In answer to the earlier intervention by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, (Daniel Kawczynski) I can say that the Foreign Secretary told Sudanese Vice-President Taha in New York on 27 September that the Sudanese Government should co-operate with the International Criminal Court over crimes committed in Darfur and should take bolder and more ambitious action to bring peace in Darfur. The process is difficult, slow and frustrating, but the UK Government are doing all we can on a number of different fronts, through our development funds and our engagement on every level, to try to support a peaceful resolution in Sudan.
	Human rights work is not simply about exposing abuse. It is about changing mindsets, and so our work across the globe, whether in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe or Iraq, is targeted and pragmatic. The end point is not necessarily to humiliate a Government, but to get them to change and to reach a point where there are no longer 7,500 people on death row in Pakistan, where the Afghan Government do not execute 15 people in the middle of the night, where Zimbabwe has free elections and where women are no longer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned earlier, the victims of so-called honour crimes in northern Iraq.
	Before I finish my remarks, I want to return to my original theme.

Malcolm Rifkind: I deliberately waited to see whether the Minister was concluding her speech. It is striking that in a debate that is intended to show the Government's approach to promoting democracy and human rights, the Minister has so far concentrated entirely on soft power, not hard power. She will be aware that she is a member of a Government that for their first 10 years, under Tony Blair, made a virtue of arguing that military means would have to be used from time to time, such as in Kosovo and Iraq, either to promote democracy or for regime change. Should the House interpret the absence of even the slightest reference to that in her speech as she approaches her concluding remarks as meaning that the Government, under the new Prime Minister, no longer believe in that approach and are unlikely to pursue it in the way that we saw during the first 10 years of this Labour Government?

Caroline Flint: I should not like the right hon. and learned Gentleman or anyone else to interpret anything that I have not said. I mentioned that our work in the Foreign Office is closely linked to the work of DFID and the Ministry of Defence, and there clearly have been situations, as no doubt there will be in future, where our military capacity will play a contribution, but they have to be determined case by case. Last week, for example, it was interesting for me to meet British soldiers in Cyprus who are part of the UN peacekeeping forces trying to make sure that hostilities do not erupt in the island. Some of the British soldiers whom I met were from south Yorkshire, where my constituency is, and they had just come from Darfur and other places around the world where they daily witness violence and the death of civilians. I do not want anyone to intimate that we do not think carefully about the issue, but today's debate is intended to look particularly at what the Foreign Office does in relation to human rights and democracy in the world.

Tony Wright: May I pursue the intervention that was just made? It raises issues that at least need to be mentioned. I refer particularly to voices from the United States that, reflecting frustration with the international community, talk of the need for a league of democracies that can do the kind of things that were said to be necessary a few years ago. Is such a proposal, with its intention to bypass the frustrations of international organisations in achieving certain democratic objectives, one to which the Government are attached?

Caroline Flint: I understand that some of that debate arises from the US presidential campaign, so I am not sure that it is appropriate for me to comment. One thing is clear, however: there will be a new President in the months to come, so there will be opportunities to think about our relationship with the US on the international stage, as well as the relationship between the European Union and the US. That will be interesting and will, I hope, build on our constructive relationship with the US and offer new opportunities.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: I want to make some progress.
	As Europe Minister, I thoroughly support the EU policy to promote and protect human rights defenders. They may be lawyers or politicians, they may be housewives or soldiers, but they share one thing—they are on the front line of human rights and, more than any policy document, they provide a short sharp glimpse into the world's trouble spots.
	It is brave for one individual to challenge a state, especially on its human rights record, so such people need our support and I conclude my speech by paying tribute to some of them: Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian journalist shot dead outside her home in 2007, and the many supporters of the "One Million Signatures" campaign in Iran, men and women calling for an end to discriminatory laws against women, many of whom have been harassed, detained, interrogated, and in some cases even prosecuted for crimes against national security, simply because of their efforts to support equality.
	At present, attention is focused on the Nobel peace prize, awarded to Martti Ahtisaari for his efforts over three decades to resolve international conflicts. I also support other prize-winning human rights activists: Gege Katana, who has stood against sexual violence in Congo, winning the Front Line award, and who was guest of honour at a reception at the British embassy in Kinshasa, and Sudanese human rights lawyer Salih Mahmoud Osman, winner of the European Parliament's Freedom of Thought prize.
	Many human rights defenders are in jail or under house arrest. The most prominent is Aung San Suu Kyi, who provides a reminder to the people of Burma that there is an alternative to military repression. In China, Chen Guangcheng received a sentence of four years and three months for obstructing traffic and damaging public property. He, too, is a human rights defender. British embassy monitoring helped to secure EU pressure for the release of Umida Niyazova from an Uzbekh prison. On the EU's doorstep, Viktor Gonchav, Anatoly Krasovsky, Yury Zakharenko and Dmitry Zaradsky opposed the Belarusian authorities. They disappeared during 1999 and 2000. There has been no independent investigation. However, to come back to an earlier intervention, I welcome the recent release of the last three political prisoners in Belarus. For the first time in a decade, that country has no political prisoners, and that is a positive step. Our reactions to that have to be tempered by the fact that we must continue to encourage engagement, while recognising that, in some instances, sanctions of different kinds continue to have a purpose as progress is made.
	Finally, let us remember Gift Tandare and the many other victims of Robert Mugabe's repression in Zimbabwe. Violence and the threat of violence have long been the chosen political tools of Mugabe and his party. When the then Opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, was beaten last year, Mugabe's response was that he deserved to be "bashed"; he told the police to "beat him a lot". A positive future in Zimbabwe depends on the violence of the past never being repeated.
	The people whom I mentioned have fought for the causes they believe in. They have been unfairly imprisoned and have suffered. Part of our policy on human rights must be to fight their corner, just as we must tackle their Governments. Above all, we must build an international community that ensures that our universal human rights are universally promoted, respected and protected.

David Lidington: First, may I welcome the Minister for Europe to her first foreign affairs debate in the House? I congratulate her on what I understand to be her imminent appointment to the Privy Council.

Caroline Flint: I am already a Privy Councillor.

David Lidington: I apologise; I am delighted to be able to welcome and congratulate the right hon. Lady. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who will wind up the debate on behalf of the Government.
	This afternoon's debate is, as I understand it, something of a last-minute arrangement. My hands were almost wet with black ink this morning as I read the Government's response to the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on human rights—a response that seemed to have been rushed off the presses in double quick time, as neither the Table Office nor Amnesty International had a copy as recently as last Thursday. However, it is welcome, particularly as this December we mark the 60th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. That declaration was full of confidence and hope. It was drawn up by men and women who knew what they were talking about, because they had experienced the horrors of the second world war, and the destruction of human liberty and dignity that it entailed.
	The declaration was not conceived as a treaty or a list of legal obligations, but rather as a set of universal principles to protect and enrich the lives of all humanity, and to guide and inspire the policies and actions of all nations. Sixty years ago, Eleanor Roosevelt, who chaired the drafting commission, urged the General Assembly of the United Nations to support the universal declaration as a first step towards a world in which the dignity, autonomy and freedom of every human being was properly respected. She spoke of work to turn the words of the declaration into practical, concrete policies as
	"the unfinished task which lies before us."
	If we are honest with ourselves, we must acknowledge that the task is still far from complete, and that millions of our fellow men and women still live in the shadow of war, oppression and persecution.
	Such a breadth of issues are covered by the title of today's debate, by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's annual report on human rights and by the Select Committee's comments on it that my remarks will inevitably be selective. I agree with the Minister that we should conduct our foreign policy in a manner that strengthens and supports our values and our commitment to democracy and human rights. We have to be honest with ourselves: it is true that the management of international affairs will always be tempered by realism. We have to work in the world as it exists. Human rights are not the only consideration when framing this country's foreign policy; nor have they ever been the only consideration when framing policy for any Government of any political party.
	Whoever serves as Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary must take account of factors such as trade, terrorism, cross-border crime and energy security. Sometimes efforts to end a civil war or to resolve an ethnic or religious conflict may involve contradictory pressures. Do we make our first priority the duty to bring to justice those responsible for barbarous and criminal acts of persecution, or is the priority to bring about an end to the conflict and suffering, even if that means that a tyrant is let off the hook and can retire in comfort? Those dilemmas are real, and that point was acknowledged by Human Rights Watch in its written evidence to the Select Committee about the 2007 report.

Tim Boswell: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have had a chance to study the European convention on human rights, which is a pellucid document. Does he not agree that all those derogations or qualifications of the undiluted human rights mixture—for example, the needs for national security, terrorism and, indeed, the clashing of rights—are explicitly allowed for? It is the conditions under which those derogations operate that may be of interest.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is worth quoting the comments of Human Rights Watch, which begins by congratulating the Government:
	"In the case of torture and counter terrorism, the report"—
	the Foreign Office report on human rights—
	"explicitly elaborates and analyses one such dilemma. Human Rights Watch believes that it would be useful to extend this approach to other areas where respect for and promotion of human rights are somehow seen as being in conflict with UK interests, for example energy security, development, commercial relations and conflict resolution. Many of these dilemmas are real. But it is only by setting them out clearly that one can deal with them and devise strategies to align interests more closely with ethics."
	I agree with those comments, and when I read them, I thought that they were a constructive criticism. I hope that the Government will accept them in that spirit and act accordingly.

Mark Pritchard: I am so glad that my hon. Friend started off with setting priorities, because I am sure that he will share my shock and dismay that, when one looks on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website at strategic priorities and policy goals, particularly inward visits from foreign Members of Parliament and Ministers, one finds no reference to human rights whatsoever. Of all the inward visits that I have seen for the past month, the vast majority have been to do with climate change exchanges—not one single inward visit has been to do with human rights.

David Lidington: I very much hope that when Foreign Office Ministers meet their counterparts from whichever country, the promotion of human rights is part of the agenda for discussion.
	Having made those qualifications, the principle remains true: if we pursue our national interest while neglecting our policy's human rights implications, we will fail. Not only do we have a moral imperative to act when human rights violations occur; it is in our national interest to see human rights advanced and protected worldwide. A world in which those values prevail is one that is more secure, more stable and more prosperous than the world we have today. Our foreign policy should reflect, in our conduct abroad, the values that we cherish at home.

Madeleine Moon: rose—

David Lidington: I shall give way in a moment.
	The promotion of human rights should not be seen as an add-on, but as an integral part of our thinking, incorporated in, for example, our national security strategy and our policies on international development. For instance, I should like us to build plans for the reduction and eradication of human trafficking into our poverty reduction programmes, and to find a way in which to integrate our concern for human rights into the pursuit of millennium development goals.

Madeleine Moon: The hon. Gentleman has gone on to make the point that I wanted to make about the involvement of not only our foreign policy but our international development policies. However, does he agree that to a large extent our focus has to be, and is, on education, in respect of how we inculcate our values? In part, our values have been demonstrated through our insistence on education. I am thinking particularly of education for girls and our insistence on raising the status of women throughout the world.

David Lidington: The hon. Lady has made a good point, and I completely concur. Education—particularly the education of women and primary education—is an absolutely vital tool in a successful international development policy, including in those elements of the policy that focus on encouraging pluralism and respect for the civil rights of others.
	Of course, we cannot simply reorder the world as we choose. We do not have the power to do so and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) hinted earlier, soldiers can remove a tyrant but find it difficult to build a functioning democratic system to take over. If the events of recent years have taught us anything, it is surely that if democracy and human rights are to take root, they need to grow in a way that is sensitive to each nation's history, culture and tradition. If we think about the history of Europe since 1989, it is striking that democracy and civil rights have flourished most quickly and richly in countries whose political cultures already had elements of pluralism within them and in which some people at least had a memory of how a democratic system of government and democratic and pluralist institutions ought to function.
	However, there are things that we can and should do. As the Minister discussed, one is to give practical support for building and sustaining democracy. I agreed with her point that membership of the European Union has helped to strengthen new and fragile democracies in Spain, Portugal, Greece and, more recently, in eastern and central Europe. I agree, too, with her tributes to the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
	This country has a good track record of contributing what one might term "democratic know-how" to new democracies. I had better declare that I am a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy; I do so because I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and his predecessors as chairmen of the WFD, which has contributed hugely, in a largely unsung and unglamorous way, to the strengthening of democratic institutions in eastern and central Europe and now also in other parts of the world.
	Secondly, we can speak out; we have the freedom to speak without fear of retribution. It therefore becomes our duty to lend a voice to the millions of people who are denied that right. I want to touch on one or two countries for which that duty is pressing. I should like to consider the case of Burma first. At the beginning of this year, I thought that the record of the Burmese Government could have plunged no lower. However, even those of us who believed that we were inured to the horror that is government in Burma were shocked by the ruthless brutality of a military junta who were prepared to obstruct efforts to bring help to the dying and destitute in the wake of cyclone Nargis.
	The Secretary-General of the United Nations is due to visit Burma this December, and that is welcome. However, I hope that the Government agree that the time has come to bring to an end the apparently open-ended and inconclusive diplomatic exchanges with the regime. Do the Government agree that it is now time to set clear benchmarks for the Burmese junta and deadlines for meeting them? I hope that they will press for such an approach at the United Nations Security Council and in their bilateral exchanges with the Secretary-General. The very first step should be the release of political prisoners in Burma—something that was demanded by the Security Council a year ago and on which no action has yet been taken by those who rule Burma.

John Bercow: I welcome my hon. Friend's reasonable and nuanced speech. As chairman of the all-party group for democracy in Burma, I pay tribute to what he just said. Does he agree that as the regime is unquestionably one of the most bestial oppressors in the world, and that as we in this country have no vested interest in turning a blind eye, we should press robustly for a binding Security Council resolution against the regime and support pro-democracy organisations in that country?

David Lidington: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister's particular responsibilities at the Foreign Office are to do with Europe, and I hope that she will go back from this debate determined to ensure that Burma is high on the agenda of meetings of European Foreign Ministers. An EU Heads of Government summit is due this week and an Asia-Europe meeting is due on 24 October. I hope that at the latter meeting in particular the British Government will ensure that the issue of Burma is brought to the fore.
	This is not only to do with China or India but with Burma's neighbours—Malaysia, Indonesia and all the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations which have it in their power and influence to affect the survival and the manner of government of the Burmese junta. I hope that every bit of diplomatic weight that the United Kingdom can bring to bear will be used to determine a European approach to those discussions and to put the maximum pressure on our Asian friends in order to secure a measure of greater liberty and common decency for the people of Burma, who have suffered for far too long.

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. May I put to him another reason why it is important that this must be done at EU level? It strikes me, as vice-chairman of the all-party China group, that one of the difficulties that we have in situations to do with countries such as China or India is that we are simultaneously trying to promote trade and talking about human rights. It is often difficult for individual countries to do that in the same conversation, whereas if the EU as a whole brings pressure to bear on China or India on an issue such as Burma, we are making it clear that, irrespective of our separate interests, our concern about human rights is paramount and overwhelming.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend, who is Chairman of the International Development Committee, makes a powerful point, and I completely agree with him.
	European action is necessary in respect not only of Burma but of Zimbabwe. In Zimbabwe, the fragile power-sharing agreement looks as if it is on the verge of collapse. Mugabe seems determined to wriggle out of sharing power and to inflict yet further hardship on his wretched and long-suffering people. I hope that during the concluding stages of this debate the Government will be prepared to say clearly that if that power-sharing deal does indeed break down the United Kingdom will not hesitate in pressing in the European Union and at the United Nations for further action, particularly for further targeted sanctions directed against Mugabe and his henchmen, who run that despotic regime.

Philip Hollobone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for touching on Zimbabwe, because the Minister did so only in passing and without intervention. Surely this is the saddest example of the diminution of British power overseas. With one third of the population displaced and an evil tyrant who has taken away any democratic rights, Britain is almost powerless to do anything. What is my hon. Friend's view of the growing influence of China in southern Africa, particularly in Zimbabwe, given that China seems to be propping up that brutal regime?

David Lidington: We should be using our contact with China—both our bilateral contacts and our discussions within the forum of EU-China relations—to bring pressure to bear so that it sees that its growing role as a powerful player in international diplomacy and economic affairs carries with it a responsibility to use that influence for the good of the people of the countries with which it trades. I do not despair of China's reaction because we have seen, particularly in respect of North Korea, to some extent with Darfur, and even—on some details—in relation to Zimbabwe, a shift on the part of the Chinese Government. China is not yet pursuing a course where it gives priority to civil rights and democracy in Zimbabwe or any other country, which I wish to see, but that should be a key element in the dealings of the British Government with China now and in the future.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is exceptionally generous, as I know because he is a constituency neighbour of mine. Does he think that Mugabe fears the International Criminal Court, or is the man capable only of greed, violence, hatred and megalomania?

David Lidington: There are grounds for believing that Mugabe does fear the International Criminal Court, and it is one sanction that we should not take off the table. We should be prepared to contemplate it. Mugabe has had the opportunity in the agreement brokered by Thabo Mbeki to leave office or cede power with what I suppose in his eyes is a degree of honour. He seems to be determined to reject that opportunity, and to cling on to the last vestiges of power for as long as possible. It should be made clear to him that serious consequences could flow from that decision.
	I want to say a few words about a broader challenge to human rights that is not restricted to one particular country: persecution on grounds of religion. Article 18 of the universal declaration asserts the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Too often, that freedom is denied—sometimes by Governments and sometimes by extremist groups operating within a particular state. One could cite the persecution of the Bahai's in Iran, attacks on Christians in parts of Pakistan or the destruction of churches and the displacement of 50,000 refugees in the state of Orissa in India, but what should give us in Britain particular cause for concern is the discrimination against religious minorities, particularly Christians, in countries where British troops are serving to sustain democracy and human rights.
	Afghanistan still seems, if certain high-profile cases are correctly reported, to have a legal system that condemns apostasy as a criminal act and will provide for the death penalty if someone is convicted of apostasy. In Iraq, there are persistent reports from the Nineveh plain—I appreciate that that is not the area where British troops have served—that there is little effective security, and that illegal annexation of land is taking place. What seems certain is that thousands of families of Christian belief have been displaced from their ancestral homes in that part of Iraq.

Daniel Kawczynski: Briefly, on the point my hon. Friend made on Zimbabwe, will he join me in congratulating the President of Botswana and the late President of Zambia, who showed courage and integrity in their public condemnation of Mugabe?

David Lidington: I am happy to do so.

Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend touched on the subject of apostasy. Does he share my concern that, never mind what is going on over there, people here in this country who choose, or choose to turn away from, particular faiths are being threatened with death? Will he put on record our Front Benchers' view on such a scenario in this country?

David Lidington: Any threats of that nature would seem, prima facie, to be a breach of criminal law in England, and I would like to see robust action taken against the perpetrators of any such threats. We are rightly proud of our tradition of religious toleration in this country. It took us many years of struggle, debate and difficulty to reach it, and it is a prize on to which we need to hold fast.
	It is not enough to speak about abuses of human rights in other countries. As has already been mentioned, if we are to be taken seriously in the world, we must be ready to acknowledge when we—or one of our allies—gets things wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that allegations of prisoner abuse or of rendition leading to torture, however isolated, have done a great deal of damage to the moral authority of the western world. Our words will carry weight only if they are supported by efforts to adhere to the high standards that we preach.
	I welcome the thorough analysis of the claims about rendition that was conducted earlier this year by the Government and by the United States Department of State. I was pleased that firm assurances have now been given that rendition involving this country will not be permitted unless it is undertaken strictly in compliance with our country's laws. However, there is a loose end to the rendition question that needs to be tied up, and I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with this point in her response to the debate.
	In December 2006, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the international covenant for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance, and Britain was active in promoting that covenant. However, we have not yet signed it. In a written answer on 14 November 2007, Lord Malloch-Brown acknowledged that there had been a delay. In a debate on 17 July this year, I asked the Foreign Secretary whether the continuing delay was due to genuine worries about security, or simply to internal delays in the Foreign Office. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would write to me
	"with details of where in the Foreign Office's pending tray the issue lies."—[ Official Report, 17 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 499.]
	Three months on, I am still waiting for that promised response. I appreciate that the Foreign Secretary has had other matters on his mind during the summer recess. However, perhaps he now finds himself with more time on his hands than he had anticipated a few weeks ago. A response is overdue on this significant question in the context of our concern over rendition and detention, and I hope that the Government will not delay further in giving Parliament a proper response.
	In pursuing our policy objectives, we also need to support effective treaties and institutions to defend and enlarge human rights. I am happy to reiterate my party's support for the negotiations to secure an arms trade treaty and for the United Nations programme of action on the small arms trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred earlier to the responsibility to protect. We want to see the United Nations work, but, as he said, Darfur surely shows that at the moment neither the United Nations peacekeeping arrangements nor those that exist at regional level through the African Union are anything like adequate or effective.
	We would also like to see the UN Human Rights Council work effectively, but I agreed with the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) when he said that its performance had been disappointing so far. If we look at the table on pages 54 and 55 of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office report on human rights, we see listed the voting on key resolutions—those that the FCO decided were the most important. Of those 10 resolutions debated by the UN Human Rights Council, the UK voted against seven and abstained on the other three. One has to ask what is going wrong with that institution when our Government find themselves unable to support any of the 10 most important resolutions.
	Clearly, a number of things are going wrong with that UN body. It is surely not right that a country can be elected to the Human Rights Council without even signing up to basic international treaties such as the international covenant on civil and political rights. Surely the process of universal periodic review—the questioning and testing of each country's human rights record—needs to take place in such a way that the countries serving on the Human Rights Council have their records examined first. One should surely expect at the very minimum that the examinations of the records of members of the HRC would have been concluded before the half way mark of the term of sitting. Something is clearly going wrong when, in the universal periodic review sessions earlier this year, we find that Algeria had a great deal of critical comment to make about the Czech Republic and, indeed, the United Kingdom—as I made clear earlier, however, I am not afraid of our being self-critical—but had little to say about its own record. Nor, sadly, did many countries from outside the developed west challenge nations such as Algeria and Tunisia about their human rights records when their turn for examination came.
	Next year, the Human Rights Council faces a very big test with the planned conference in Geneva, which follows up the world conference against racism held in Durban in 2001. Let us be honest about it: Durban was a travesty, with Israel singled out for attack and the then Secretary of State, Colin Powell, walking out in protest. Let me make this clear: I have criticised Israel in the past and I will continue to do so over its settlement policy, the route of the security barrier and its treatment of Palestinians, but the notion that Israel—and Israel above all—should be singled out is to deny the reality of what is happening on human rights in the world today.
	It is the reputation of the United Nations, and in particular the Human Rights Council, that will be at stake in Geneva next year, and I have to say that the omens are not good. The chairman of the conference planning committee is from Libya, the vice-chairman is from Iran and the rapporteur is from Cuba. Will the ministerial team tell us during this debate whether Her Majesty's Government plan to send Ministers to attend the conference in Geneva or have they already, like Canada, written it off as a bad job? Will the Government fund non-governmental organisations to attend the conference? I think that we deserve some straight answers on those points.
	People who have glimpsed freedom—whether it be through books, television, the internet or travel—will never be content until they have secured it for themselves. As Eleanor Roosevelt said 60 years ago:
	"People who continue to be denied the respect to which they are entitled as human beings will not acquiesce forever in such denial".
	The ideas embodied in the universal declaration of human rights were then and remain now a beacon of hope and optimism to those who endure tyranny and oppression. All of us here, from whichever party or political tradition we come, have a duty to cherish and uphold those ideas today.

Bruce George: I am delighted with the subject of the debate. There are many hon. Members here who directly participate in the promotion of democracy throughout the world as Members of Parliament. We are in a Chamber—not this one, exactly—that fought hard and resisted for a long time the process of democracy, denying ordinary working people and women the right to vote. The franchise was pathetically small, but because of external pressures—the Birmingham Political Union of 1832, the Chartists and the suffragettes—as well as other pressures from within our political system and, in many ways, from within our legislature, we evolved, painfully slowly, into a formidable democracy.
	Complacency then set in, and there was a rude awakening a few years ago when we realised that not everybody who could vote was imbued with the tradition, which had been laid down for over a century, of one person, one vote. Instead, there was one person, multiple voting. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) knows a great deal about that, as do others from Birmingham.
	I am delighted that the action taken by the Government, the Electoral Commission and the wonderful judge of great literary competence who produced the report on Birmingham has helped to recreate the culture of elections whereby international standards, as well as British standards, are adhered to.

John Hemming: I am pretty certain that the right hon. Gentleman and I do not disagree on this. I would like to highlight the fact that the difference was that Birmingham took action to deal with election fraud, not that it happened only in Birmingham.

Bruce George: The hon. Gentleman was accused of being a very bad witness, but he was right in that he identified the substantial fraud in Birmingham. It scarred a number of political parties, not least my own, but I have traced the evolution of democracy in detail and seen how election petitions originated. In the 19th century, Members of Parliament judged people who had complained about elections, which was almost like Mao Tse Tung's determining the nature of democracy. Members of Parliament were ill equipped to comment on other people's frauds because they were themselves the beneficiaries of fraud. It was only when Parliament and the Government transferred to the senior judiciary the function of addressing election petitions against fraud that the problem was largely solved.

Madeleine Moon: I take my right hon. Friend's point about the evolution of democracy—we cannot just click our fingers for it to emerge in a certain country—but does he agree that we are attempting to make big changes through the Global Opportunities Fund, in particular in China, where we are working at different levels with the legislature, the judiciary, law enforcement agencies, non-governmental organisations and academics so that democracy and human rights are gradually inculcated into the systems and form part of their thinking? It should not be denied that we are helping to move the process forward.

Bruce George: That will save me five minutes of my speech. I emphasised our own backyard to point out—I hope quite forcefully—that before we start to lecture others on democracy and free and fair elections, we should put our house in order. I believe that we are largely doing that as a result of the scandals in a number of cities and towns in this country.
	There are many definitions of "democracy", although I shall not go into them. I am an avid reader of  The Economist and the output of the Economist Intelligence Unit. It has taken a good approach to what constitutes a democracy, using a scoring system that puts the UK—I do not think this is right—23rd out of about 30 democracies, although I am consoled by the fact that the French are 24th. There are also other ways by which one can evaluate whether a country meets democratic standards.
	My point is that not more than a fifth or a sixth of countries can be designated "democratic". Many purport to be democratic and many have not the slightest interest in becoming democratic, but some are struggling to do so. We took a long time to achieve democracy—comparatively speaking, we were a wealthy nation in the 19th century—so one has to have a degree of tolerance towards other countries that want to be more democratic, but are in the early part of the process.
	Some people mocked Islamic countries in this regard, but in fairness I must point out that a number of countries are trying to be more democratic, such as Albania, which does not have much of a record of democracy. We have done a great deal in the international community in relation to Kosovo and Bosnia. I am a great supporter of Turkey, whose Islamic Government are far better at achieving and maintaining democracy than their ostensibly secular predecessors. They are certainly far less corrupt.
	Other examples are Indonesia, Malaysia and Morocco, which are trying hard. Algeria is fighting a war against terrorism and is also trying hard. I have visited Kuwait and other Gulf states, and I head a small non-governmental organisation that is helping capacity-build in the second Chamber of the Omani Parliament. I merely make the point that it is difficult for an Islamic country quickly to move towards western-style democracy, even if it is not from a standing start. Perhaps such countries will not adopt western-style democracy, but I am confident that a number of countries are progressing in the right direction at a pace they can cope with.
	We are progressing and the UK's record in promoting democracy is good, but it amuses me to look at the annual report produced by the Department for International Development, whose record in promoting democracy is excellent. In the index to the report, the only reference to democracy, as with the Foreign Office annual report, is to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
	This country is trying hard and succeeding well in promoting democracy, not forcing it down people's throats or saying, "Look, we can tell you how to do it." There is an exchange of experience. Therefore, I hope that future annual reports at least pay lip service to the fact that both those great institutions of our state are promoting democracy. Why do they appear embarrassed to admit that we are promoting democracy? Why are they hiding behind terms such as "human rights", which the Government are promoting and appears in the reports, and "good governance"? Those are weasel words, albeit important words, and I feel embarrassed that those institutions are not prepared to say them.
	On democracy promotion, I do not want to give a checklist. I am not one of the greatest admirers of the United Nations, and many of the problems that we heard about earlier are the result of countries with little democratic tradition such as China and Russia—previously the Soviet Union—doing all they can to prop up Governments as illicit and authoritarian as their own.
	Security Council decisions can easily be vetoed, so it is not at all surprising that democracy is hardly as high on the agenda as it ought to be. However, it is quite high. The record on what is being done by the political and electoral assistance divisions, and by other parts of the UN, is good. What was virtually the founding document of the UN extolled the virtues of free elections as an essential element of any society in the world. The UN's record is far from bad; it is good and deserves more praise. I am saying that not because I am going there in January, but because the record is not as bad as some people purport it to be.

John Bercow: Given that both the Government of Burma and the Government of Sudan continue to be guilty of the most egregious human rights abuses, that neither of those regimes is improving, and that both are propped up by what I would call the amorality of the Chinese, how does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Chinese can be persuaded to behave in a more responsible and moral fashion, in their own interest?

Bruce George: One would hope that as a result of the inexorable process of democratisation, the more the population are educated and the more—dare I say it?—bourgeois they become, the more they will not be prepared to acquiesce to a decision-making process emanating from the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. One would hope, therefore, that the Chinese would reach a point that we and most, or at least many, other countries have reached. Russia has not reached that point, I am afraid, because its progress in the rather anarchic democracy of Yeltsin has been deleted. We may not quite be returning to the Soviet era, but we are certainly heading towards an era in which sovereign democracy is as plausible a concept of democracy as were the people's democracies in eastern and central Europe from the 1940s onwards.
	I should like to say that the United Nations is doing a good job. Other international organisations are certainly doing a good job—including the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, although the Russians can veto any decision made in the OSCE. I am not the foremost devotee of the European Union system, but I have been back and forth quite frequently exploring the EU's role in promoting democracy, and it is formidable. We should note how well it functions in observing elections. It is now probably almost as good as the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which I consider to be the jewel in the OSCE's crown and to represent the gold standard for election observation.

Malcolm Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman is making a good point, and he is right to mention those organisations, but, given the problem that we have with Russia, does he think it entirely helpful to the credibility of this country—and, indeed, to the Council of Europe—for an alliance of British Conservatives and Russian supporters or Putinites to operate as a single political unit in the Council's Parliamentary Assembly?

Bruce George: That is another three minutes of my speech gone, but I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said, although I believe that those to whom he refers have at long last extricated themselves from the process. It should be pointed out that while it is not possible to pick and choose members in the OSCE, it is possible to do so in the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. It can appoint and it can throw out—and if a country's human rights record is as bad as that of Russia, and getting worse, I feel that that country should be a suitable case for rustication.

Tony Baldry: Without descending to party politics, which could be discussed on another occasion, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is sensible that the Council of Europe has resolved to conduct a full investigation of the circumstances involving the recent war between Russia and Georgia before jumping to a conclusion, and has indicated in pretty clear terms that consequences will follow if a conclusion is reached that is adverse to either or both parties?

Bruce George: I am delighted. I hope that a Russian rapporteur is not involved. If I had the time, which I do not, I could list all Russia's failures—

John Bercow: Go on!

Bruce George: It is all there, it is all there. I could list all its failures—fraudulent elections, preventing candidates from contesting elections, what it has done to non-governmental organisations, the unfortunate disappearance of heads of NGOs and journalists and so forth, without even mentioning what it is doing in relation to foreign affairs and defence. I only hope that the declaration issued half an hour ago that Russia was, if not repenting—that would be the wrong word—reconsidering is correct. At this point in time, however, Russia is becoming rather more obstreperous, and we need to be more and more careful.
	I have mentioned the important role of international organisations, but national Governments also have an important role. We know what is being done by the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office, and, in the United States, by the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development, but the same can be said of almost every country. I spent a good deal of time conducting a survey of 30 countries, 25 of which responded. I have just sent off a reminder to the others. I examined the way in which national Governments fund their own NGOs as well as international organisations such as the UN and the OSCE, and what international NGOs are doing. It is rather ironic that the United States, which has a rather low reputation at the moment, has such an incredible number of first-rate NGOs. We know of most of them, including the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, Freedom House, the Eurasia Foundation and the National Endowment for Democracy.
	Let me issue a plea for excellent NGOs in democratisation and human rights that are desperately in need of funding. Oh yes, we fund them initially, but subsequently we rely on the private sector to do so. Some countries are hanging on to democracy by their fingertips. Civil society and NGOs are the essential link between foreign countries that seek a greater expansion of democracy. In whatever capacity I can do so, I plead with our own Government to fund more and better organisations. That does not just mean giving four million quid to the Westminster Foundation, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), excellent though that organisation is; there is more to be done, even by the Foreign Office and DFID, to help to sustain countries that seek to be democratic.

Mark Oaten: The right hon. Gentleman lists organisations that are doing great work in promoting democracy. Perhaps he will say a word about the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, two organisations that do a great deal to try to help in this context.

Bruce George: I can only apologise on the grounds that I am writing a book on the subject, which will include a chapter on what Parliaments and inter-parliamentary assemblies are doing. I agree that what the IPU and the CPA are doing is truly extraordinary. Members of a delegation from Botswana who are in the House today are guests of the CPA. The whole network of international organisations, national Governments and Parliaments, NGOs, universities and individuals plays an enormous role in establishing and sustaining democratisation.
	In the final three or four minutes of my speech, I wish to raise an issue that causes me great concern. I have headed 18 short-term missions to observe elections—for instance, the sequence of rose revolution elections in Georgia and orange revolution elections in Ukraine. The Russians are convinced that I am an employee of the CIA, MI5 or MI6. What they cannot recognise is that their mates in those countries ran totally corrupt elections. It was not only that we declared that those elections failed to meet international standards; our findings merely verified what the populations were thinking. We did not deliberately spark something. We were not there to create a peaceful revolution. It was people in those countries who said "Enough is enough. Thank you for confirming what we already know—that our Government are a bunch of crooks who are cheating at elections."
	Election observation is a vital element of the promotion and sustenance of democracy. There are so many wonderful organisations, domestic and otherwise. Some of the best that I have seen are in developing countries such as Kenya. I am on the board of one in Kazakhstan. We must pay tribute to the countries that are sustaining democracy through election observation and democracy projects albeit that they are not natural democracies. My great anxiety is that election observation by ODIHR is under considerable threat. It is hard enough observing elections and producing, hopefully, correct reports based on evidence, but there are two hurdles, obstacles or mountains that ODIHR must surmount.
	There is, for example, the opposition of Russia, which does not wish ODIHR to go there and, inevitably, say "These elections fall well short of international standards." Russia and the other "great democracies" in the Commonwealth of Independent States such as Uzbekistan and Belarus are ganging up on ODIHR. They are trying hard, throughout the OSCE, to get ODIHR busted or, worse, reduced to the standards in the CIS. That would be the end of legitimate, intelligent, professional election observation. If anyone has the stomach to read some of the things I have written on the matter, I would be delighted if they wrote to me.
	We would expect the Russians to do that. We would not expect a fellow OSCE institution, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, to collude with the Russians in order deeply to damage ODIHR, which, as I said, is the jewel in the crown of the OSCE system and the gold standard of election observation. A part of the OSCE system wishes to supplant ODIHR as the principle election monitoring organisation, or, if that is not possible, to set itself up as an independent election observation body. I have the evidence. A lot of brown envelopes are heading my way on what it is doing.
	I hope that this debate will have an impact on the Foreign Office and on DFID, which obviously had a part in instigating it, and that hon. Members will say, "You are doing a good job, but there is a lot more to be done." I congratulate the Electoral Commission, which is doing a very good job not only in following what is going on internationally but in helping to ensure, with those in government and Parliament who are on the same wavelength, that we put our own house in order.
	There is nothing more embarrassing to me than going to countries such as Kazakhstan and Russia as an international observer, giving a beating around the head to countries that held fraudulent elections and then having, at conferences where I have spoken, my own words thrown back at me. For example, people have said, "I understand what you are saying, Mr. George, but why don't you allow domestic or international observers to observe your own elections?" That is a legitimate point and it is irrefutable. Thankfully, legislation has amended that, and I hope that planeloads of Belarusians and Kazakhs will head to our elections when they are held, just to show that, even though we may be prepared to advise them about their elections, we at long last have put our own house in order.

Daniel Kawczynski: The right hon. Gentleman mentions the Electoral Commission. I join him in congratulating the commission on its work, but it has expressed publicly its frustration at its lack of teeth in forcing the Government to implement certain of its recommendations. Does he agree that more powers need to be given to the commission to force those changes through?

Bruce George: I think so. The organisation has been going now for eight or nine years. I wish that I had applied to be head of it. It is a part-time job with a salary of £150,000. By God, I would have been out of here in a flash, but I would probably be tainted by my political views. It is an excellent organisation, but it is going to undergo substantial change. A report has been written by another organisation. I hope that it will be subjected to the same scrutiny as it gave the Electoral Commission, which does a great job but has to remind us constantly that corruption is a problem—albeit not a major one—and that the major problem we, the United States and almost every democracy face is raising money to fight elections. I was going to mention Iceland, but it does not have any money any more—it had most of ours. The sad thing is that, in whichever country we are talking about, legislation is passed, only for it to be ignored.

Madeleine Moon: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one can monitor an election and find it to be fair or reasonably fair, but that unless the people who are elected have the skills to promote democracy and human rights, voice their opposition and know how to use the system to promote the human rights issues that we would like to be taken forward, it does not work? A group of women parliamentarians from the Labour Benches went to Pakistan, where we met groups of women who were elected to their local councils. They were told by the men, "You have been elected but now you do not have to do anything. You can stay at home, or you have to do what we tell you." DFID has invested in training for those women, which will help to promote that democracy.

Bruce George: I agree, as a converted male chauvinist pig. Having been beaten around the head for 25 years, I have succumbed to the pressures. The role of women in Parliament is undervalued. Including our illustrious official, there are four or five women in the Chamber, which is a low proportion. That is not enough. It is not good enough.
	Some countries are amenable to influence, want NGOs and Governments to help and want embassies to fund democratisation programmes. They are prepared to allow George Soros and the National Endowment for Democracy to give them money. They are almost easy, until we say, "Are you serious? Despite all the assistance we are giving, this Parliament is almost as supine as it was". At that point, perhaps we should put our money into countries that are listening and that do wish to democratise. There are difficult countries; we should not give up on them.
	The index in DFID's annual report and in the Foreign Office annual report show that they are doing a very good job, but it is not enough. If only a fifth or sixth of countries in the world can be classified as democracies, we realise how many more resources we need to put in. I wonder what the effect will be. We know what happened to struggling democracies after the Wall street crash following the first world war, and what happened to them after the second world war. Many went under. If there is a cataclysm—I hope there will not be—I hope that it will not result in fascist, Nazi, extremist-type parties putting all the blame on democracies and sweeping them aside. That is one of the great anxieties, but I am pleased with what is being done. There is consensus between Government and Opposition, but we should refine our processes to ensure that we are more successful, because the work to be done is almost limitless and there is no scope for complacency.

Jo Swinson: I too welcome the Minister to her new position. I look forward to our exchanges both here and in Westminster Hall, although I hope not to spend quite so much time with her as I did with her predecessor now that the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 is on the statute book.
	It is an important time to have this debate. As has been mentioned, this year, we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. The global values of equality, justice and the rule of law are as essential now as they were in 1948 when the horrors of world war two were fresh in people's memories.
	Despite the strides forward that we seen over the past six years, the catalogue of human rights abuses that are going on across the world hangs like a badge of shame around the world community's neck. This will be, and has already been, a wide-ranging debate so it is impossible to cover everything, but first, picking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), I want to talk about the importance of promoting democracy and human rights within the UK. I also want to discuss the role of women within human rights and then talk about the position in various countries.
	Like many hon. Members, I am a member of Amnesty International, and I find that when its magazine drops through the letter box every couple of months, I need to be in the right mindset and have a strong stomach to open the pages and to read what is inside. However, it is important that we do that, and do not turn a blind eye to the horrendous crimes that are being committed across the world. Not only is that daunting, but there are so many dreadful and appalling practices taking place in so many countries that it can be difficult for one individual to feel that they can make a difference—perhaps it is somewhat easier for us as Members of Parliament to feel that we can make part of a difference than it is for our constituents. However, it is important to remember the values of organisations such as Amnesty, who say that when people join together it is possible to achieve improvements in human rights, and also to remember the well-documented impact that the letters received by prisoners of conscience around the world have on their day-to-day ability to get up and continue going through their dreadful existence.
	Obviously, if we in the UK are going to lecture on, promote or encourage democracy and human rights, we must first be careful to ensure that our own house is in order, otherwise we will lose any authority we have on the world stage on these issues. There is sometimes a danger of that, particularly when our liberties here at home are being eroded. I therefore very much welcome the fact that the UK was one of the first countries to undertake the United Nations Human Rights Council universal periodic review, and that it did so in a constructive way to try to act as a benchmark to encourage other countries to embrace it positively as well. The way in which the UK dealt with that was picked up. A variety of recommendations were made.
	Reading through the report, I was interested by the fact that listed in brackets after the recommendations are the countries that suggested them. I particularly liked the one that suggested having a strategic body to tackle violence against women. I have raised that with the former Prime Minister and other Ministers on various occasions in the House, and the End Violence Against Women coalition is calling for that. Topically this week, another recommendation was that we should consider the legality of corporal punishment against children. Sadly, last week we did not have the opportunity to discuss the amendment to the relevant Bill, but I am sure that that subject will come up at a future date.
	I was also interested in the recommendation that we should have strict time limits on pre-charge detention. Interestingly, that was suggested by Russia. When Russia is giving us good advice on human rights, it is time to worry. I wish to take the House back to 1 July 2004. At around the time when Robert Mugabe had extended detention without charge to 28 days in his Public Order and Security Act, the then Foreign Secretary said:
	"The Zimbabwean authorities also continue to devise new powers to stamp out legitimate opposition, such as detention for up to a month without trial, which could be used to suppress dissent and protest."—[ Official Report, 1 July 2004; Vol. 423, c. 454.]
	I think we should— [Interruption.] Yes, only a month. We should muse on that: there are countries that are not where we might want them to be on human rights, but we have been criticising them for doing things that we have later done ourselves. This subject is, of course, topical today, with the other place considering the issue of detention for 42 days. We will see what the result of the vote is, although there is a great deal of hope among some Members, certainly on the Liberal Democrat Benches, that that proposal will be turned down by the House of Lords—and if reports in the media are to be believed, that might be accepted by the Government.
	I could go on, as there are a range of other issues on which I think we should be putting our own house in order. The ambitious ID cards database goes far beyond what any other country is doing. Given the confidence that the public have at present in databases and the protection of their liberties, that idea should be thought through again. There is also the DNA database: 3.4 million people are on our database—a proportion five times greater than the proportion of the population on a DNA database in any other country in the world. That figure includes 25,000 children who have never been charged with any offence. The Government might want to learn from Scotland, where the DNA of innocent individuals cannot be held indefinitely.

Pete Wishart: As a fellow Scottish MP, the hon. Lady will know that one of the biggest democratic debacles we have witnessed in the past few years was the Scottish parliamentary election in 2007. Will she support the calls made only last week in the Scottish Parliament to have those elections repatriated to the Scottish Parliament so that we never get in such a mess again?

Jo Swinson: Absolutely. When the right hon. Member for Walsall, South was saying how wonderful the Electoral Commission was, I had last May's elections in Scotland in mind, which were not excellent, and I believe that one of the recommendations made in the aftermath of those elections that the Government should take up is the suggestion that it should be up to the Scottish Parliament to look after its own elections.
	On democracy, it has been 18 months since this House discussed House of Lords reform and voted overwhelmingly for an all elected upper House, yet it has taken more than a year to get to White Paper stage, and the Government seem to be dragging their feet.
	Therefore, although I will focus the rest of my remarks on human rights and democracy abroad, there is no room for complacency on these issues at home either, and if we were to assume that we had it all sussed, that could be perceived as arrogant, and be counter-productive in international negotiations on this topic.

Simon Hughes: Before my hon. Friend moves on to discuss specific countries abroad, will she agree that one of the things we can do is build up the organisations based in the UK that allow a reciprocal exchange of best practice? The British Council does that, as do the World Service and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Many places are willing to exchange staff, young politicians of the future and Clerks from Parliaments, and they are not just new democracies, but countries that have become democracies and are still learning the ways but are very willing to share their experiences—countries such as Ukraine, which is going through difficult times, but which is clearly determined to get this right.

Jo Swinson: I agree with my hon. Friend. Through the exchange of individuals—whether parliamentarians or staff such as Clerks—we can all learn from each other. I am thinking now of the occasions when I have been abroad; I went to Sierra Leone with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and I hope I added value to that country and the parliamentarians I met there. I certainly came back from that experience with a much better understanding and much more knowledge about the situation there, which I have found useful since. Such exchanges are, therefore, valuable.
	The role of women has not been much mentioned so far today. Far too often, women are forgotten when discussing human rights and democracy, even though many of the worst human rights abuses perpetrated are against women, and despite the fact that in situations of conflict it is often women and children who suffer the most. I am particularly concerned about the fact that women are often not involved in the resolution of conflict and the post-conflict rebuilding of countries. Earlier this year I visited Kosovo, and one of the people I met was Igballe Rovoga, the director of the Kosova Women's Network. Talking to her about her experiences after the conflict was illuminating. All the men were gathered into a room to discuss what to do next, and somebody from the UN came in and after a bit of nudging—from some people from Britain, I think—it was asked, "Hang on, we don't have any women here. What are we going to do?" Eventually Igballe and a couple of others were summoned along to be the token women in the discussions. In fact, they ended up being very influential as they prepared exactly what they were going to say and asked the questions that they wanted to ask. That is an example from within Europe, but this issue is often forgotten about.
	Another anniversary is coming up on 31 October this year. On that date in 2000, UN Security Council resolution 1325 was passed, which requires parties in conflict to respect women's rights, and to support their participation in peace negotiations and post-conflict resolution. Sadly however, eight years later there are still almost no women at the top levels in peace-building and post-conflict reconstruction. I hope the Minister will consider what action the Government might be able to take to strengthen resolution 1325. Is a stronger resolution with more teeth required, and should we be arguing for that at the UN?

John Bercow: I am listening with interest and respect to the hon. Lady's speech. I very much welcome what she says about women's rights and involvement. Of course, we cannot change the world overnight, but on the principle that he who pays the piper calls the tune, surely we can exert some influence? Does the hon. Lady share my horror—which was certainly shared by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce)—that when the International Development Committee has visited some women's projects in a number of African countries over the past few years, we have been taken aback by the fact that the speeches have invariably been delivered by the men, while women, including highly qualified graduates and masters graduates, were left serving the tea? We were paying for those projects, so surely we can do something about that?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman makes a salient point, and I hope it will be taken up by those planning the visits and those running the projects. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce)—will not have let such experiences go unnoted at the time.

Malcolm Bruce: I concur with my hon. Friend's concerns on that matter. Does she accept our disappointment that in the past year, nearly all the women Ministers in Afghanistan have been removed from the Government? The only woman left in the Government is the Minister for women's affairs, which they did not feel would be appropriately done by a man. Is that not a regrettable indication that the commitment to resolution 1325 and to women is superficial in many countries?

Jo Swinson: I wholeheartedly endorse what my right hon. Friend says, and in fact I was about to talk about Afghanistan. The position of women under the Taliban was well documented. They had no access to education, they were treated like second-class citizens and there were draconian controls on their movement and freedoms. As an aside, I wholeheartedly recommend to the House "A Thousand Splendid Suns", a novel based on fact, which I read over the summer. It is about the position of women in Afghanistan and demonstrates how terrible the situation had become.
	One might have expected the situation to be much improved since the fall of the Taliban. Some girls in Afghanistan do have access to education now, but the situation is still dire. I was intrigued by the list that the Minister read out towards the end of her speech, of individuals who have made a particular contribution to fighting for human rights. I have another to add to the list: Malalai Joya, who is the youngest member of the Afghan Parliament.
	Malalai Joya was in London last Monday to be awarded the Anna Politkovskaya award for her courage and dedication in trying to protect human rights in her country. Afterwards, Malalai came to Westminster and I was fortunate enough to meet her and interview her for Women's Parliamentary Radio. Her bravery was inspirational, and the experience was humbling. What she faces on a day-to-day basis makes what we do as MPs in this country pale into insignificance. For the crime of speaking up and suggesting that crimes against women should be punished, that those who are now in positions of power but used to be warlords on the rampage, raping and killing, should be brought to justice, and that the Parliament is not being strong enough on the matter, she has been suspended from Parliament. Where is the freedom of speech in that?
	When Malalai Joya was in Parliament, she had bottles thrown at her and abuse and death threats hurled at her. There have been four assassination attempts against her, and she has to sleep in a different house every night. She is continually at risk. Such individuals are a fabulous inspiration, but it is sad that there are not enough people such as her speaking up, and that it is still necessary to do so in a country in which we are investing so much. We ought to have more influence, so that we can prevent such things from happening. She showed me a video in which a 12-year-old girl who had been gang-raped was spoken to. Of course, the perpetrators had not been punished. That is not a one-off horrific situation, it is what happens day in, day out.
	It is not just women who are suffering in Afghanistan. The whole country is on a knife edge, and if we fail to secure lasting peace and security there it will have major implications for our ability to promote democracy and human rights worldwide. There are well-documented claims that our military are overstretched by fighting on both fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Recently, the Iraqi Prime Minister has said that it is time for the UK troops to go, and I hope that the Government will do what Liberal Democrat Members have argued for for some time, and withdraw the troops from Iraq so that there can be more focus on Afghanistan. It is vital that we succeed in our objectives there.
	Our experience in Iraq has been disastrous for our credibility in promoting democracy and human rights abroad. When I visited the UN earlier this year and spoke to various diplomats, the feeling was that it undermines what we are trying to do elsewhere. It is ironic in some ways that improving the humanitarian situation in Iraq was often quoted, albeit after the event, as one reason for our intervention there. The lack of planning for rebuilding the Iraqi state after the military action was entirely unforgivable. It was a great mistake, and it has been responsible for some of the appalling violations of human rights in Iraq since 2003. The figures speak volumes: since 2003, we have spent £6.6 billion in Iraq on the war and £125 million on humanitarian assistance. That shows where the priorities lie, and they need to change.
	I have one further point on Iraq. It is nearly 18 months since five British men were seized at the Finance Ministry in Iraq and taken hostage. One can only begin to imagine the agony that their families have faced in the past year and a half, and I hope that the Minister can assure us that every effort is being made in the ongoing negotiations to secure the release of those men as soon as possible.

Simon Hughes: I wish to reinforce the fact that if we go to war without UN authority and pass laws to detain people without trial, we are prevented from going to countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan and arguing that they must protect human rights. We have ceased to be credible, and what we do at home has a direct effect on our ability to influence such things in other countries.

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently, and he is quite right.
	I wish to mention a few other countries. We have heard about the difficulties over the summer involving Russia and Georgia, and there are wide-ranging implications for human rights not just in Georgia but in the other vulnerable states in the region. The deterioration of our relationship with Russia is a great cause for concern, and it will not necessarily be easy to rebuild it and put it right. A strong unified EU response is vital. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) was right to call for strong EU pressure on Asian countries on the subject of Burma—a subject on which I echo many of his comments. We have seen the fabulous work of the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) in the all-party group on democracy in Burma. The dreadful situation there was particularly evident in the response to the natural disaster earlier this year.
	The lack of democracy in China is well documented. I visited China earlier this year on a Select Committee trip, and in the entire trip we had two hours off to explore Beijing. I went to Tiananmen square and the forbidden garden and tried to engage my guide in a political discussion. I asked her what she thought about Chairman Mao, and it was like coming up against a wall. She had good English, so she understood the question, but she did not understand the concept that one might have an opinion about a political leader, and especially that it might be a critical opinion.

Stephen Crabb: On the subject of Tiananmen square, is the hon. Lady aware that someone using the Google internet site in China and typing in "Tiananmen square" gets very different results from someone doing the same here in the UK? What does she think that says about China's approach to controlling modern forms of communication and its commitment to freedom of communication and speech?

Jo Swinson: I think it says that China is determined to put huge resources into trying to control the internet. I understand that it has 50,000 individuals shutting down internet sites, but I do not believe that that will be sustainable in the long run. One of the wonders and joys of the internet is that it will be a great vehicle for improving democracy and showing people that things are different in the world outside, and that they, too, could and should have human rights.
	I was on holiday this year in Cuba, where the situation is similar. A foreigner is allowed to use the internet, but its use is greatly restricted for locals. Even foreigners have internet rationing. Cuba does not have the same resources to block sites as China, but following some political news still proved slightly difficult. However, the internet will be a mechanism to promote freedom. China will try to restrict it, but it will be like trying to empty the Atlantic with a teaspoon, or whatever the correct analogy is. It will ultimately not be successful.

Madeleine Moon: Has the hon. Lady had the opportunity to read Mark Leonard's excellent book, "What Does China Think?", which demonstrates that there is huge debate across China? In fact, there are more think tanks considering different political methods and ways of moving the country forward politically than there are in this country. It can sometimes be simplistic to think that there is no debate taking place in China. It is just that the debate is not taking place in a form that we would understand.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady is right. Clearly, people in China have to be very careful about what they say and where they say it, but that does not necessarily mean that they are not thinking about these things. I am sure that Members will be interested to look at the book that she mentions. She has made a very good point.
	I am sure that dismay is felt across the House at the events that we have seen take place in Zimbabwe over the weekend with Mugabe's power grab. There was that little chink of optimism with the signing of the agreement on 15 September, but it is beginning to look like nothing more than a delaying tactic on Mugabe's part. Last Tuesday, during Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions, the Foreign Secretary said:
	"Mr. Tsvangirai is ready to work with Mr. Mugabe on the distribution of Cabinet portfolios, and that is the key test now."—[ Official Report, 7 October 2008; Vol. 480, c. 128.]
	Clearly, Mugabe has failed that test. I hope that the Minister will say in summing up what action the Government are taking to increase the international pressure on him to reverse this weekend's power grab, and whether they still believe that the current system is sustainable in trying to get the result that we want, or whether we will have to bring in a new mediator to achieve any progress.
	We also need some consistency from the Government on Zimbabwe. The Foreign Office has been very good at urging the promotion of human rights, at trying to stop the torture and bloodshed and in condemning the actions of Mugabe, and I am sure that they have been pursuing all the diplomatic channels to try to get movement in that country. However, at the same time the Home Office is having legal arguments to try to send back asylum seekers who are fleeing the very torture that the Foreign Office is condemning, and some failed refugees have been in detention centres in this country for two years. Is that really the kind of human rights position that we want to promote? Is that really going to give us the moral authority to criticise Zimbabwe's attitude to human rights? How can the Government possibly have a clear conscience in this matter? Surely Zimbabweans here must be allowed to work to support themselves while this situation persists.
	The United States of America proves that democracy is no guarantee of human rights. I welcome the Minister's strong condemnation of water-boarding—one of the torture methods apparently sanctioned by the US. Not only is that country condoning torture, but it uses the death penalty, including on some young men and women, and it has the illegal and immoral stain of Guantanamo Bay on its conscience. The Government did finally secure the release of the UK citizens, although I note that one UK resident is still up for one of these military commissions, or kangaroo courts, which certainly does not conform to the standards of justice that we would hope for and expect. It took the Government far too long to act on Guantanamo, and that was shocking. I remember Ministers referring to it as an anomaly, refusing to condemn it or to say that it should be closed. We always welcome a sinner who repents, but it took too long. I suppose that it is some cause for optimism that both candidates for the US presidency have talked about closing Guantanamo Bay. It must be the top priority for the next US President if that person is to have any moral authority on democracy and human rights on the world stage.
	Before I conclude, I should like to apologise to the House. A prior commitment clashes with this debate, and because the debate was delayed because of the earlier statement, I will not be able to stay to hear the next two speakers. However, I intend to come back as soon as I can to hear the rest of the debate.
	Effective international institutions are of course very important to the aim of improving human rights—through the EU, the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe, the Commonwealth and beyond. Closer co-operation across Government with our foreign counterparts is crucial to the security of this country. It is important that respect for human rights and the liberty of the individual is not undermined in the name of security. The UK must play a role on the international stage to promote human rights and encourage democracy. The challenges are huge, and sadly, the UK's position has been undermined by our actions in Iraq. None the less, we must redouble our efforts, and I hope that the mooted supposed Government U-turn on 42 days that may come shortly is a sign that they, too, are keen to safeguard human rights in the UK. That would indeed be a step in the right direction to give us back the authority to be a positive influence for democracy and human rights in the rest of the world.

Mike Gapes: I reiterate my welcome to my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) to their positions on the Front Bench. I look forward to scrutinising their work closely through the Foreign Affairs Committee over the coming months and years.
	I spent last week with the Committee at the United Nations in New York, and I want to share with the House some impressions that are pertinent to this debate. There seems to be a great expectation throughout the UN system—among the people who work in the UN full time, the permanent representatives of many countries and the non-governmental organisations—that, as has been mentioned, Guantanamo Bay will be closed, although there does not seem to be much discussion on the lines set out in a previous Foreign Affairs Committee report, about how we in the rest of the world can contribute to that closure. Some very dangerous people who are detained there will still have to be dealt with. It is easy glibly to say, "Shut the place". The decision also has to be taken on what to do with 100 to 150 hardened terrorists who are a great danger to many people.
	We have expectations that the attitude of the United States will change, becoming more multilateral and less unilateral. Of course, we have already seen the malign influence, which has gone from the UN system, of the unlamented John Bolton. His successor, Zalmay Khalilzad, who was ambassador in Afghanistan and in Iraq, is doing a much better job in assuaging people's concerns. In his urbane style, he is able to act as an antidote to the provocative and inflammatory work of his predecessor.
	However, we should not exaggerate what will happen with the change of the US presidency. Whoever is the next President, the United States will still have national interests, global interests and economic interests. It is a little naïve to think that the personality of the President will lead to a change in the policies of a country in which there is a separation of powers, and where there will be, as result of the economic crisis that we face today, less of a focus on trying to intervene in democracy and human rights issues worldwide, and more of a focus on coping with the economic consequences of the financial catastrophe that has hit the US harder than the rest of the world. I fear that there may be protectionist pressures in the US. I fear that there may be moves toward inward-looking behaviour.
	An interesting opinion poll was reported to a seminar that took place during the Democratic national convention in Denver a few weeks ago, which I had the privilege to attend. It showed that there has been a significant shift among American public opinion away from involvement in the rest of the world, and a greater shift among Democrat voters than among Republicans. We need to bear that in mind, because whether it is President Obama, as I hope it will be, or President McCain, there will be domestic pressures on them, which may mean that we have some uncomfortable responses to deal with. There will be demands on the rest of the world, as well as a more multilateralist approach.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is right to introduce a note of hard-headed realism into the debate, and I can see the sense of what he says about what might happen under an Obama presidency. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me, however, that notwithstanding the pressure to support protectionism and those in America who benefit from it, what we really need to see if there is a President Obama is his assertion of his optimistic side and idealistic self? Most people do not get the chance to be President; if he gets there, he should pursue the noble goals, multilaterally and internationally, in which he believes.

Mike Gapes: There is a chance of that; all I am saying is that there will be other pressures on that presidency. If Mr. Obama appoints people such as Susan Rice, Tony Lake and others, some of whom served in the Clinton Administration and are well known in Europe, we can feel reasonably confident. Even a McCain presidency would be a significant improvement, in many respects, on what we had to deal with under President Bush. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) says that that would not be difficult. I do not want to go into that; I want to discuss the future.
	I wish to discuss a concern that has been touched on in the reference to the league of democracies. John McCain has surrounded himself with advisers, including Fred Kagan, who advocate a position of saying, in effect, that the United States, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan, and perhaps some other countries, should set themselves up outside the UN system and just go ahead as a kind of coalition of the willing on a grand scale. That is extremely dangerous, as such an approach would set back the cause of democracy. If the world's largest democracy, India, would not be part of that—I am sure that it would not be—and if the largest and most diverse country in democratic terms in Africa, South Africa, which, on paper, has the most pluralistic guarantees of human rights and civil liberties of any country in the world, was not part of it either, that would damage the call made so eloquently by Eleanor Roosevelt and the people of the United States when they played such a key role in establishing the United Nations system in the 1940s.

Mark Oaten: On that point, would not an important step and at least the minimum we should expect from whoever becomes the next President of the USA be that that country signs up to the International Criminal Court?

Mike Gapes: I hope so. I think that there is considerable support in the Democratic party for that approach. I spoke at a seminar in Chicago in 2005, organised by the university of Chicago, for which some people were brought over from Europe to argue for the US to join the ICC; the university of Chicago is, of course, in Barack Obama's home city. There is a body of opinion for that view and I hope there will be US support for signing up to the ICC. However, in United States politics there remains a view of American exceptionalism, whereby the international rules do not apply to the United States, and we must recognise that we will still have to do a persuasion job to emphasise the importance of this matter. The American support for referring the Sudanese Government to the ICC over Darfur was an important sign, because the Security Council is needed to make such a reference and the move was not blocked. That was a positive sign, even under President Bush. So all is not lost, but we need to maintain the pressure on that issue.

David Drew: Much as I would like to go down the route of discussing Sudan, because I have significant interest in that matter, I shall stick to talking about the ICC, about which there is a complete contradiction in American policy. The Americans have been implicitly supporting the ICC over the indictment of al-Bashir, but are not willing to see that they must sign up wholesale. It would not be difficult to improve on the Bush Administration, but to be fair to the Americans, they have been quite good on their involvement in Africa. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it would be a retrograde step if America were to pull back, became isolationist and lost its influence in Africa.

Mike Gapes: I do not think that that is possible; one thing that we discovered in last week's Security Council discussions was that 70 per cent. of its agenda is dominated by discussions of Africa. The issues discussed include: the crisis in Sudan; Somalia, which is a failed state, with terrible consequences for the region; Zimbabwe; the Congo; poverty; HIV/AIDS; and malaria. So many issues have an impact, particularly on sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, there is the question of what happens in north Africa and in the Arab world. Many African countries are Arab countries, and that has an enormous impact not only on potential migration resulting from climate change, but on radicalism, extremism and terrorism. There is a huge agenda, but there is also an irony in respect of the African countries, many of which have weak Governments and need the kind of excellent assistance that is given by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), who succeeded me as the chair of the board and is now passing on the baton to somebody else after three years. I know how hard he has worked to build up the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and make it such an effective organisation in a number of countries, and he will be missed.

John Bercow: Of course it is true to say that the United States has been good, in some respects, in denouncing violence in parts of Africa, but it has been conspicuously bad at fostering improved trade in Africa, notably, for example, in west Africa. Given that Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad depend for between 30 and 40 per cent. of their export earnings on cotton, but the US gives $3 billion to $4 billion a year to subsidise 25,000 extremely inefficient American cotton producers, on a scale of one to 10 what does the hon. Gentleman think are the chances of a new American president taking some account of extreme poverty in those African countries getting calculatedly worse as a result of current American policy?

Mike Gapes: I am tempted to refer the hon. Gentleman to Lord Mandelson of Hartlepool. [Hon. Members: "And Foy."] And wherever.
	There are lessons to be learned from the failure of the Doha round talks. I am thinking not only of the responsibility of the US lobbies. European agricultural producers—tobacco producers and others—have had a serious impact on many developing countries. One issue that we need to assess is the trade consequences, which are very important for the issues of human rights, democracy and governance. If we move to bilateral regional trading blocs, foreign assistance arrangements or treaty arrangements on a bilateral basis, many small countries—many of the poorest countries—which do not have resources and do not have something that bigger countries want, will get missed out in the process and will not get the protections and support that they need.
	Although there is a certain amount of optimism in the UN, there are also some worries. In this cataclysmic week or month—or perhaps 17 months—there has been a recognition of something that we all knew was coming, although perhaps it is coming far more quickly than we thought. The economic power templates in the world are moving, but will political changes also result? China is already playing a much more engaged role in international institutions. In general, its role in the international community is a positive one, rather than a negative one.
	Interestingly, China has not sided with Russia in all issues internationally over recent months and years. Even over Georgia recently, the Russians failed to get support through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation on their position regarding the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However, there are worries about what might develop out of the embryonic SCO. Some people see it as the precursor to an axis of sovereignty: a group of countries that oppose any concept of the internationalisation of domestic issues. Some people see it as a potential rival to NATO and a bloc that, in time, could become far more important than it is now. Only time will tell, but clearly there is a debate to be had about where the UN system goes and where the universalist values of the 1948 declaration of human rights go in the future.
	A very interesting pamphlet has just been published by the European Council on Foreign Relations entitled, "A global force for human rights? An audit of European power at the UN". I recommend it, because it contains some interesting and pessimistic conclusions. It basically says that the European Union, over the last decade, has lost influence in the UN system and that our values—what the report calls liberal interventionist values—have been weakened. Reference has already been made to the Human Rights Council, but even in General Assembly votes and in the Security Council there has been a weakening of support for those values. Countries that the report describes as "swing states"—democracies such as South Africa and India—have sided with the authoritarians against the democrats on many issues, such as in the case of Burma. I hope that South Africa under its new temporary President and under the President elected next year will be truer to the democratic values of the liberation movement, the freedom charter and the constitution that they established and will bring in a much more engaged foreign policy rather than siding with those countries that are against intervention on foreign affairs.
	Reference has been made to the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on human rights. This is not the occasion for a big debate on the subject—I hope that we can have such a debate with the Minister in Westminster Hall at some point—but I want to draw attention to some points. The first is the question of trade union rights. The matter has not yet been mentioned, but it is one reason why Colombia is the only country in Latin America to be highlighted in the Foreign Office's report on these issues. Our Committee is critical of the fact that although we give military aid and support to the counter-narcotics forces and human rights training to the Colombian armed forces, there seems to be an increase in the pressure on and deaths and intimidation of active trade unionists in that country.
	President Uribe is one of our allies. He is a supposed partner of the United States and of this country, yet today I received a letter from somebody working for Thompsons, a solicitors firm that does a lot of work with trade unionists, pointing out another list of individuals—I will not go through the names—whose lives have been threatened. The Colombian Government are not prepared to provide them with protection when they are engaged in their trade union activities. That is unacceptable and the Government should be doing far more, both collectively through the EU and individually, to raise the issues of human rights, trade union rights and the protection of the brave men and women in the trade unions in Colombia.
	Finally, I want to say something about Russia and Georgia. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) might not agree with what I am about to say, because he has had close, warm relations with the nascent democratic movement in Georgia. We need to be very careful that we do not just take the view, which seems to emanate from some people in the United States, that there are no issues in the conflict for which the Georgians should be criticised. Yes, the Russians have behaved deplorably—they overreacted massively and their recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is totally wrong and unacceptable, and it cannot be agreed with or recognised—but Saakashvili, the President of Georgia, was reckless and irresponsible in August and he did what he did despite advice from the United States and from many other countries not to behave in such a way.
	We need to be very clear that even though a country is a democracy, that does not mean that every action it takes will automatically be supported. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said that democracy is no guarantee of human rights, and she referred to the United States. That point also applies to Georgia. There was a worrying article in  The New York Times last week about crackdowns on opposition to Saakashvili in Georgia. The point also applies in Sri Lanka. That island has a democratic Government, but the most appalling human rights abuses are also going on. Many are carried out by the Tamil Tigers, but many others are carried out by the Sri Lankan armed forces. At the same time, the United Arab Emirates is an example of a country that is not a democracy where there is the rule of law, a civil society and respect, within parameters. One of the two—democracy and human rights—does not necessarily lead to the other.
	People such as President Bush who have the naive belief that if we get everywhere to have free and fair elections there will be no conflicts and no problems have a very dangerous world view. Unless the ethnic, tribal, religious and cultural differences in a society are resolved, and unless political structures and political space are created, even if there have been formal elections and changes of Government, the situation can end up like that in Georgia. Mr. Gamsakhurdia was followed by Mr. Shevardnadze, who was followed by Mr. Saakashvili, and none of them had total respect for the different minorities.
	In Sri Lanka, a significant minority of people on the island feel discriminated against. Extremist groups feed on that and make the situation far worse. We need to be cautious when we talk about democracy and human rights. We need to be more sophisticated about it. One does not automatically follow the other. Human rights can exist in societies that are not necessarily entirely democratic, while there can be democracies that do not respect the human rights of either people in their society or of their neighbours.

Daniel Kawczynski: I am very disturbed that the hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has said that Georgia could in any way be culpable for what has happened. It is a tiny country trying to defend its sovereignty. Many European leaders went to Tbilisi to show solidarity with the leadership there, and I am astounded that he could be an apologist for the aggressive action of Russia.

Mike Gapes: I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that comment, as it is absolutely outrageous. I am not apologising for anybody. I am simply saying that the behaviour of the Georgian Government in August, when they were advised not to take the action that they did, played into the hands of Putin and allowed the pre-planned package of rapidly moving forces to annex those two areas in Georgia. We can go into the long history of the situation, but interestingly South Ossetia and Abkhazia had autonomy when the Soviet Union broke up. In 1991, the first President of Georgia, Gamsakhurdia, cancelled that autonomy. Since then, it has been a so-called frozen conflict. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe observers—some Russian, some Georgian—were there but made no real efforts to resolve the conflict, so it festered.
	There are other frozen conflicts: Transnistria; the conflict between Nakichevan, Armenia and Azerbaijan; and, of course, Nagorno-Karabakh. Many conflicts, which could explode at any time, are consequences of the break-up of the former Soviet Union. We need to be aware of them, and as Europeans we need to be more active in doing something about them, especially as they border our continent or form part of it. The Russians need to be condemned and criticised and we ought not to pull our punches. If small countries decide to poke the bear and it lashes out, they should be told to be a little calmer, otherwise there will be consequences that are dangerous for the rest of the world and for the people in those countries.
	We can have that discussion another time, but those of us in NATO and in the European Union should be cautious about taking simplistic positions and saying, "Once you're a democracy, you are automatically part of our family and regardless of what you do, or how you behave, there is an article 5 guarantee. We will sign up to defend you whatever you do." That is extremely dangerous and as Europeans on the western side of the continent we need to tell some of our fellow Europeans on the other side of the continent that although we understand their situation and are concerned about it, they should not behave in a short-sighted and dangerous way.

Malcolm Rifkind: I very much agree with the final remarks of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), but when he deplores Russian recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia he should remember that the road to South Ossetia and Abkhazia began in Kosovo. There is a clear connection between those events, to which I shall return in a few moments.
	May I say in what I hope is a non-partisan way that I think that there is a basic confusion at present in the Government's whole approach to the promotion of democracy and human rights? If there was one defining feature of the first 10 years of this Labour Government, especially under Tony Blair and the late Robin Cook, it was the belief not only that there should be ethical foreign policy but that there would be occasions—perhaps more than in the past—when the west had to show, not simply by soft power and diplomatic means, but by the use of military power, its willingness and determination to change the political situation in other countries: to use military power to intervene not simply to prevent aggression, but to advance human rights or ensure regime change.
	That approach was very much associated with Tony Blair, but the point has been repeated by the current Foreign Secretary. He does not spend much time on it, but in some of his speeches he has emphasised the point that military intervention must be part of the Government's armoury as they seek to advance democracy and human rights. It was significant that the Minister for Europe, who opened the debate, said not a word about that. Indeed, even when I asked her views she had nothing to say of any significance as to whether that was the Government's position. I hope that we shall have a view about it.
	I declare my position in a simple and straightforward fashion: I have always believed that almost without exception it is a gross and foolish mistake to intervene in a military way in the internal affairs of another state. I argue that case not on some theoretical ground of national sovereignty—it is often alleged that people who take the view that I take have an objection to breaching national sovereignty even when there is the most serious abuse of human rights. That is not my position. It is the position of the Russian Government and of the Chinese Government, but it is not my view, which is simple: almost without exception, intervention in the internal affairs of another country, using military might, creates more harm than good. It ends up creating more problems than it solves and people will live to regret that fact.
	The issue is not about humanitarian intervention. When the Conservative Government were in power, I was responsible as Defence Secretary for the humanitarian intervention in Bosnia. We sent many thousands of British troops to help to provide food supplies and aid for people who would otherwise have starved. What we refused to do was intervene on one side or another, in a military sense, in the war being conducted at the time. We were criticised for that, but in light of the present Government's experience, both in Kosovo and in Bosnia, the arguments are profound.

Simon Hughes: I do not want to engage with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the lessons of the '90s in southern Europe, but does he accept that whatever his view about military intervention there is no excuse for a country to deny an international agency of reputation the right and duty to be present and observe what is going on and report back? For example, I understand that the Sri Lankan Government still do not allow the UN into Sri Lanka so that there can be objective reports from international observers about what is happening on the ground.

Malcolm Rifkind: I do not doubt that what the hon. Gentleman says is correct. I entirely agree, but I want to concentrate my comments on one specific aspect: the use of military power to deal with human rights abuse.
	The two major areas where the British Government, the United States Government and a number of other countries have sought to implement such a policy are Iraq and Kosovo. The road to Baghdad began in Belgrade. Serious consequences arose from the situation in Kosovo that were never part of the Government's policy. They achieved two things by their intervention: they were able to take action that ultimately led to the downfall of Milosevic—indirectly—and they were able to reverse the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians. However, when we look at the whole picture we find that although the Kosovar Albanians were repatriated, the Kosovar Serbs were ethnically cleansed and to this day remain exiles from their country. The Government have made no significant attempt to draw attention to that fact, yet it is part of the overall balance in the consequences of their policy. The ethnic cleansing of a minority is no more or less reprehensible than the ethnic cleansing of a majority.
	The Government choose to ignore the fact that it was never part of their policy to advocate the independence of Kosovo—quite the opposite. Not only the British Government but all western Governments, as well as NATO itself, made it clear that the purpose of the intervention—or rather the war; it was not an intervention—was to ensure that Kosovo achieved autonomy. They said that they were against independence because of the fragmentation of the Balkans and the terrible example it would set for other parts of the world, including the Caucasus. That idea has had to be dropped and it is no longer part of British policy or that of the west as a whole.
	When the NATO bombing of Belgrade began, NATO expected it to be only for several days. It was not; the bombing lasted for almost two and a half months and, in essence, involved a war on Serbia fought from the air. I have no time for the Serb Government of Milosevic—that is not the point at issue—but when people start wars, they lead to consequences far different from those that were intended. Those consequences can be serious both domestically and geopolitically.

Mike Gapes: We are where we are, so given the history, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that after eight or nine years of fruitless negotiation and the rejection of the Ahtisaari plan by the Government of Serbia, there was little alternative but to go ahead and try to create a situation whereby Kosovo could have investment from abroad and try to normalise its situation? Whatever the history, the reality is that Belgrade's writ could never run in Pristina. We have to deal with reality.

Malcolm Rifkind: But the reality is that the human rights abuse in Kosovo, serious though it was, was no more serious than in many other parts of the world where we have not contemplated going to war. The reasons for military action in Kosovo had more to do with the role of NATO, and the importance of showing that it had a role, and with demonstrating western resolve than with the specific situation in Kosovo.
	I shall explain briefly why I think it will almost always be the case that military intervention in the internal affairs of another country that has not attacked us will turn out to be disastrous. There are four reasons. First, when people go in, particularly with regime change in mind, they create a political vacuum. Once that happens, they cannot control what emerges. When we went into Iraq, it was no part of western, or coalition, policy that Shi'a and Sunni sectarianism would grow dramatically and become the dominant force in Iraqi politics, yet it should have been anticipated that if a political vacuum is created, the people of the country concerned will determine for themselves the political consequences that flow from it.
	Secondly, intervention changes the political dynamic of the country that has been invaded. Until NATO took military action against Serbia, the vast majority of Kosovar Albanians, although they wanted independence, would have compromised on autonomy. They did not believe independence could be achieved, so they were willing to go for autonomy, which is what Rugova was arguing for and other Kosovar Albanians would have settled for at that stage. Once a group knows that NATO is on side, it has a historic opportunity that has never happened before and will probably never happen again. Every single Kosovar Albanian then said, "There is no question of autonomy or compromise; it is independence or nothing." That not only could have been predicted, but was predicted. However, it was ignored at the time, because it was inconvenient to do otherwise.
	First, military intervention creates a political vacuum. Secondly, it changes the internal political dynamic. Thirdly, although we will win the conventional war—NATO will always win a conventional war, just as the coalition did in Iraq, and just as NATO did in Serbia—the consequence will be asymmetrical responses from those who know that they cannot beat the west or NATO in a conventional way. So it comes about that there are Shi'a and Sunni militias—and, in Afghanistan, the Taliban—operating in quite a different way from those taking part in conventional conflicts, but nevertheless making a mockery of what we set out to achieve.

Stephen Crabb: My right hon. and learned Friend is making a powerful and compelling speech. How would he regard our action and intervention in Sierra Leone? Would he regard it as an exception to his argument, or does it fit with the general principles that he outlines?

Malcolm Rifkind: Sierra Leone was quite different; we were invited in by the Government of that country. It was a small, self-contained operation, and we went there with consent. We did not invade a country against the wishes of its Government. There is therefore a clear distinction.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. As always, he is making a highly compelling speech. Circumspection and an insistence on considering each case on a case-by-case basis is one thing, but a blanket rejection of military intervention in human rights crises is a quite different matter. How does he reconcile the position that he is commending to the House, to which I confess I am instinctively rather averse, with the United Nations proclamation on the responsibility to protect? Humanitarian intervention often requires military intervention, and indeed regime change, if we are to achieve anything.

Malcolm Rifkind: I will come to that point, and will give my hon. Friend a direct answer in just a moment, if I may.
	The fourth result of military intervention is, of course, the geopolitical consequences to which I referred in my opening comments. The independence of Kosovo, which was forced on the west against its wishes, unlocked a series of consequences. It has meant the fragmentation of parts of the Caucasus, and has led every small national minority in many states to believe that if it can only push us hard enough, it can create a further fragmentation of Europe and of the wider world. That has the serious consequences that we are now experiencing.
	I now come to the point that my hon. Friend raised. Everything that I have said so far implies that one can somehow just ignore human rights abuses, however serious they are. I make one exception to my general principle, and that is in the case of real genocide. The word "genocide" has been used very widely. It has been used to talk about small massacres in towns, cities or villages, or against small numbers of people. Such events are terribly reprehensible, and I will come back to that issue. However, I entirely acknowledge, for a reason that I will explain, that if there is a genocide such as the holocaust, or such as that in Rwanda or Cambodia, in which a whole population is threatened with annihilation, of course the outside world cannot but intervene.
	How do I rationalise that, given what I have just been saying? I do so in a very simple way. I have argued that whenever one intervenes militarily in the internal affairs of a state, one will create more harm than good. By definition, the one exception is genocide, because although military intervention will still create a political vacuum and change the political dynamic, and still lead to all sorts of consequences that were never intended, nothing can be as bad as the genocide that one has succeeded in stopping. In circumstances in which military intervention would prevent or stop a genocide—I mean genocide in its overall sense, not simply a massacre in a town or a village—the argument must point in the other direction.
	That leaves the question: what does one do about lesser human rights abuses, in which people are persecuted and sometimes slaughtered? I refer to the Srebrenicas of this world—

John Bercow: Darfur.

Malcolm Rifkind: And to Darfur, and so forth. In cases that my argument does not properly address, there is a spectrum of responses. Military intervention leading to regime change is at one end of the spectrum. There is a whole range of other options available. I do not just mean economic sanctions or diplomatic pressure, but options involving military means.
	When I was in government, we imposed a no-fly zone on Iraq. We stopped Iraq persecuting the Kurds. We were able to stop it persecuting the Shi'a. Saddam Hussein had no control over his own airspace. He was emasculated as a power that could show aggression to its neighbours. However, we did not have to invade Iraq to achieve that, and therefore we did not suffer all the terrible consequences that there have been in the past five years. There are options available, but there has been a lack of imagination on the part of the Bush Administration and, I must say, the British Government. There has been a belief that either there should be military intervention involving regime change, or soft power should be used. That quite ignores the spectrum of alternatives available, some of which may involve the use of our military assets.
	In the past 20 or 25 years, there has been a huge increase in democracy in the world. It is rightly often mentioned as a matter in which we should take huge pleasure. There has been such an increase in Latin America, central and eastern Europe and many countries of the far east, and that is marvellous. It is significant that all those changes—all these red, orange and purple revolutions—have almost entirely taken place without external intervention, as a result of the determination of the peoples of those countries.
	In his book, "The Audacity of Hope", Barack Obama says that:
	"there are few examples in history in which the freedom that men and women crave is delivered through outside intervention. In almost every successful social movement of the last century, from Gandhi's campaign against British rule to the Solidarity movement in Poland to the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, democracy was the result of a local awakening."
	I am not arguing that the outside world cannot influence events; of course it can. I am arguing against the ridiculous concept of the Bush doctrine and of the Blair Chicago speech—repeated by our current Foreign Secretary, although not with the same emphasis—which says that military intervention is the way in which one achieves internal democratic change in certain countries.
	Finally, there is another, highly relevant reason why such intervention will not work—why the Americans cannot, by themselves, create democracy in Iraq. It is a simple question of their staying power. Britain helped to create democracy in India because the Indians knew that we were going to stay there for a very long time. We were in India for 200 years. If one is somewhere for 200 years, of course one changes the culture of a country, affects its options and has a powerful impact on its political development. If, however, as was the case in Afghanistan or Iraq, from the moment we arrive, our objective, supported by public opinion, is to get out as quickly as possible, the domestic population of the country knows it perfectly well. It knows that it has to tolerate us while we are there, but it is only too anxious to see us go, and will then determine its own political destiny.
	That is not an argument against human rights or democracy—far from it. It is simply to recognise that we are talking about matters that, rightly, will be determined by the populations of the countries concerned. With the single exception of cases in which there is genocide, I believe that military intervention will do more harm than good. The examples of Kosovo and Iraq are evidence of that. Our Government may in practice have given up such a policy, but they continue to pay lip service to it. I hope that they will recognise that that is not a sustainable position, and will reverse it as soon as possible.

Tony Wright: In a moment, I want to continue the argument and the conversation that the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) began. He took the debate into interesting and difficult territory that forces us to examine some rather large issues.
	Before I do that, let me say that one of the joys of a debate on democracy and human rights is that one can talk about almost anything one wants. I could not help but be struck by the headline of today's  The Times; it was simply: "Banks nationalised". The idea that there would ever have been such a headline in  The Times beggars belief. It immediately put me in mind of Sidney Webb's Fabian essays of 1889, in which he says:
	"The inevitable outcome of Democracy"—
	with a capital "D", by the way—
	"is the control by the people themselves, not only of their own political organisation, but, through that, also of the main instruments of wealth production".
	Of course, that was the belief of many in my political tradition: democracy was not simply a set of political arrangements but a way in which the people could discipline private power. Indeed, that was the governing class's fear of democracy, and why it was resisted so furiously for so long. The worry was about not just people having a vote but about what the vote would do, and what people would want to do, armed with the vote, to private economic power. It is a nice symmetry, therefore, that today the banks are being nationalised, and I shall return to that at the end of my contribution.
	When we talk about democracy, we use the term without defining it. We use it as a shorthand for free electoral competition, free expression, the rule of law, respect for differences and for minorities, and so on. We often prefix it with words such as "liberal" or "pluralistic" to show that we do not believe simply in majoritarianism, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, suggested, it is possible to have majoritarian tyrannies. Human rights are properly attached to democracy as a qualifier, to show that we believe not in majoritarian tyrannies but in the kind of democracy that recognises that individual citizens possess rights that are to be protected, even against majorities.
	That is why the link between democracy and human rights is important. It is a source of regret that in recent years the phrase "human rights" has begun to be used pejoratively by the Daily Mail and parts of the Conservative party. That profoundly damages the broader human rights cause, because it detaches us from a broad movement for human progress and the protection of individual freedoms. We must not allow such denunciation or criticism to enter our culture of human rights, and I hope that it no longer prevails.
	I often think that there is a certain unreality to Foreign and Commonwealth Office Question Time. We tend to ask the Government to do things about places almost anywhere in the world. We have a roll call of places where things need to be done, and we ask Ministers what they are going to do. The realistic answer in almost all cases is, "There is nothing very much that we can do about those things on our own. All we can do is work with others to try to make some improvements." The mentality that we bring to proceedings, however, is that the gunboats are there, poised to be dispatched to whichever part of the world is causing difficulty. We need a dose of realism.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea gave us a dose of realism when he explained why intervention to do good almost always does harm, certainly if military means are used. He argued his case extremely powerfully, and I want to pursue it by briefly discussing two instances that have preoccupied the Commons in recent years: the Iraq adventure and Europe and the European treaty, which force us to think rather large thoughts about democracy and human rights.
	I dissent somewhat from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as I believe that the tragedy of Iraq is that it stopped us thinking creatively about the doctrine of liberal intervention, because it seemed absolutely to validate the proposition that he advanced. So catastrophic was the failure that it persuaded people that it was not even worth thinking about how we can sometimes intervene to do good, even by military means, and I say that as someone who did not vote for the Iraq war. I wanted to believe the arguments. I wanted the then Prime Minister to tell me that this campaign was directed against the world's worst tyrant, and that we were going to ensure a little instalment of freedom, but he was careful not to say that. He said that, in fact, it was consistent with international principles: the objective was not regime change, it had been validated by the United Nations, and so on, but none of that persuaded me. Nor was I persuaded, to use the right hon. and learned Gentleman's test, that it would do more good than harm. I thought that the warnings about the acceleration of terrorism were probably justifiable, and that we should do things only if there was a good chance of their succeeding.

John Bercow: The former Prime Minister grounded his case principally on the miscellany of Security Council resolutions on the one hand and on the supposedly imminent threat to our security through weapons of mass destruction on the other. May I nevertheless tell the hon. Gentleman that, even with the passage of time and all that has gone wrong—I am not sorry or ashamed to say this—some of us voted for the Iraq war overwhelmingly on human rights grounds? I was never convinced of the weapons of mass destruction thesis, but I thought that there was a case on human rights grounds and in the name of regime change for going to war.

Tony Wright: We all wrestled with the arguments at that time. I wanted to believe them, and I would have signed up to a campaign simply to remove tyranny, because we had such an opportunity, and I thought, rightly or wrongly, that it would be worth doing. I was not persuaded, however, by the argument about its success, nor was I persuaded that it would not produce more terrorism, rather than diminish it. I was not persuaded, either, by the argument about the link between Iraq and previous terrorism. It was hard to sustain the argument, and I had doubts about the larger ideological prospectus attached to it.
	Having said all that, I had huge respect for those who, like the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), supported the decision on the right grounds, and I wanted it to succeed. I take no pleasure from the fact that it has proved so awful.
	I return to where I began: unlike the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea, I do not want to cite this with relish as vindication of the argument that international attempts to sort out monstrous regimes inevitably fail. He said that he was not defending a tradition of national sovereignty, but that was his argument. I do not think that tyrants can do what they want simply by citing the doctrine of sovereignty. It is sensible to consider whether any action will do more harm than good. That approach argues for caution in many circumstances, but that does not mean that the development of the doctrine of liberal or humanitarian intervention should be junked, although many people have readily wanted to draw that conclusion from Iraq. If we say that, it does no service to people in the world who need us on their side. Although it is difficult, tricky and contentious, we must work inside international organisations to make sure that they better equip themselves to do the things that we want them to do.
	This debate has been full of frustration with international organisations and the dangers posed by people who want to bypass them and do things directly through a coalition of the willing. We do not want that, but we do want to try to transform those organisations so that they can do things more effectively when they need to be done. They should not simply stand aside, with us swapping frustrations as horror follows horror, and every tyrant knowing that they will be protected because the international order says that they will be. Our concern for democracy forces us to explore such huge issues further.
	My next point is to do with my own area of contention—Europe and the recent European treaty. I want to relate that to democracy because of a paradox, about which we have to be open and through which we have to try to work our way: that, to be effective in the world, we have to be more effective than we can be on our own. We have to be effective players in the big international blocs, and the big international bloc in our part of the world is the European Union. On issue after issue, we are asked to be effective at EU level. That is the reality; it does not matter what the issue is.
	The ideological essence of democracy is that we have to go where the power is. We have to follow the power with the democratic disciplines, but that is precisely what we have not done in relation to the international financial system. We have allowed a globalised financial system to happen—I was going to say that we had "created" it, but that is probably not the word—but we have not put in place global regulation of the system. Domestically, we have thought it crucial to discipline private power in that way, but globally we have not.
	It is no good saying that it is all the fault of the rotten bankers, although it no doubt is. There has been a failure of democratic imagination and will on a scale that is difficult for us and involves establishing the international mechanisms necessary to control the new sites of power in the world. That is what democracy is about. Europe is one of the mechanisms for securing leverage on the wider sources of power, which is why we have to be part of it.
	We have to go upwards, to European and other international levels, to control those forces, but the more we go upwards, the more people feel removed from the sources of power that affect their lives. To be real, democracy usually has to be near and accessible. The paradox is that for democracy to be what it has to be—the mechanism that disciplines power for us—we have to go upwards ever more. That makes it difficult for people, small people in a big world, to understand how they can get democratic leverage and control.
	That is why those who say that we do not have to be effectively engaged at the European level, or have institutions and treaties that enable us to do that, are wrong. They are right, however, to reflect anxieties about how we control such mechanisms. We have not yet begun to do that in any effective way. That is the challenge.

Simon Hughes: rose—

Tony Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene?

Simon Hughes: indicated assent.

Tony Wright: Of course I give way.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman was getting so carried away with his important point that the danger was that none of us could be spotted.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman absolutely. Some of us have supported the European Union because we realised that economic powers were international, money moved around and companies relocated, but that there was no political control so we needed a regional, continental level to exercise that. Is not the answer to the hon. Gentleman's paradox that one can do both? One can transfer upwards—give up power and share sovereignty at the continental, regional and international levels—and downwards, to the four countries of the United Kingdom and, within England, to the regions, and then down to the parish and community levels. Both transfers are possible, and both need urgently to happen.

Tony Wright: The hon. Gentleman has taken my concluding peroration; I shall have to do a bogus one now. He has given the answer to the paradox: that democracy has to operate at many different levels and we have to get the democratic forms appropriate to those levels. People could then understand that democracy is near to them and in a form that they can control, but that, for some issues, it will require different forms of control.
	If we want democracy to do what is necessary—discipline power—we need mechanisms that link the local neighbourhood council to the new international regulatory mechanisms. We have not begun to explain how the paradox works. When we debate Europe some people call for a referendum because they say that Europe is not very democratic and the people must be allowed to speak. My response is that although people might say that, a referendum on the European issue would be the worst thing to do, because we would not know what people were voting for and against. We would not know which bits of the Lisbon treaty people liked and which they did not like, nor what the consequences would be. We need, instead, to argue for the democratisation of different levels of power.

Daniel Kawczynski: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Wright: I am just ending; I shall not give way again.
	Robin Cook, the late, great Labour Foreign Secretary, was right to enter Government saying that we wanted an ethical foreign policy, but along the way such foreign policies always hit realpolitik. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea was the authentic voice of realpolitik: "Things always go wrong. Ambitions are always vain. Don't give me all this ethical foreign policy stuff."

Malcolm Rifkind: indicated dissent.

Tony Wright: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not actually say that; I withdraw the last bit, because he did not mean that.
	I would argue for ethical realpolitik. Yes, of course we have to be sensible and know that sometimes things go wrong. Of course we must not be reckless. However, we should not give up on the ethics, either. We have unfinished democratic business at home—and unfinished democratic business internationally, too.

John Mason: I should start by saying that I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has just said in favour of democracy, so I shall delete that part from my speech.
	It is a tremendous privilege to stand before the House today and have the opportunity to speak. I am only too well aware of the history of this place and of the number of highly respected Members who have represented my own beloved city of Glasgow and constituencies round about: some of them are here today. I thank the many Members who have warmly welcomed me to the House, and particularly Mr. Speaker for his help during the two months before I was sworn in; it is good to have a neighbouring Glasgow Member in such a key position. I was particularly keen to take part in this debate on democracy and human rights, but first I would like to make some opening remarks, as I believe is the custom.
	The people of Glasgow, East elected me to send a message to the Prime Minister and now I am here to deliver it. That message is clear and simple: it is time for action to help hard-pressed households who, given soaring food and fuel bills, are struggling to make ends meet. During the by-election, Scottish National party pressure forced a U-turn on the 2p rise in road fuel duty. People are struggling to make ends meet, and an SNP success in Glenrothes would force more action over soaring household bills.
	The swing that elected me to what was Labour's third safest seat shows that Labour's days of taking Scotland for granted are over. It is clear that people have had enough of the party's broken promises, and want a change for the better.
	Less than four short months ago, I was happily taking part in debates in Glasgow city chambers, with the outlook of a quiet July and a holiday in prospect. However, as has been said,
	"The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
	Gang aft agley."
	We think that we have the future of ourselves, our economy and our country safely planned out, but events take a turn and we find ourselves not where we expected to be.
	As I reflect on the past in this place, I particularly wish to mention my immediate predecessor, David Marshall. Although I had been a councillor in Glasgow for some 10 years, it was only when he became the Member for the newly created constituency of Glasgow, East in 2005 that our paths began to cross. I must say that in all my dealings with David Marshall I always found him to be helpful and courteous to me and to others, and I know that that was the experience of many who met him. Since my election, a number of constituents have approached me about a problem that David Marshall had been dealing with and asked me to take it up as well. I am more than happy to do that, particularly in the case of several asylum seekers whom David Marshall was helping and I seek to help as well.
	Despite what is reputed to be the robust nature of Glasgow politics, many of the concerns of the two main parties there—the Scottish National party and Labour—are shared concerns. For example, in his maiden speech in June 1979, David Marshall referred to the poor state of many school buildings in the city. Twenty-nine years later, I am very much at one with him on that. He clearly believed that all children everywhere deserve a decent education in decent buildings, and I want to follow his example on that point. Just the other day, I received a letter from David Marshall wishing me well. That says a lot about him as a man. I am sure that the House would want to join me in wishing him a swift recovery from illness and a long and fulfilling retirement.
	I understand that it is also customary on these occasions to mention one's constituency, and I would like to make a few points. I assume that a number of Members visited Glasgow, East in July—although I realise that some could not make it—and were able to see for themselves the success and the problems. It is certainly not an area of uniform devastation, as some have had us believe—in fact, it is a very mixed area, like so many others. Old heavy industry has largely gone, with some new manufacturing and service industries in its place, but still one sees the wide open spaces where the factories used to stand. We have to do something about that.
	Much of the '50s and '60s housing has been refurbished or demolished, with new and better housing in its place. The Scottish Government are providing grant for new house building, which is very welcome, as are restrictions on the right to buy. However, our Government's powers are limited. We need to do something about that.
	Some old schools have been combined and replaced with excellent modern facilities. However, there are still many popular schools with good educational attainment, despite the fact that inspector's report says that the buildings themselves are very poor. All that I hear from head teachers and their staff is that a modern building is a huge morale booster for teachers and pupils. Labour-controlled Glasgow city council has let the schools down for decades. We need to do something about that.
	We look forward to the Commonwealth games coming to Glasgow, particularly to the east end, in 2014. Glasgow has done well in having many of the facilities in place already. It is encouraging that the Scottish Government and the city council, despite being of different political persuasions, are willing to work so closely together in having everything in place for the games. It would be even better if lottery funding could be released to fund a lasting legacy, as has happened with many similar events in England. However, I constantly hear complaints from youngsters about the lack of local affordable facilities, which they feel are too far away or too expensive. We need to do something about that.
	In preparing this speech, I was encouraged to read some of those made by Members in the past. I was struck that in at least two I found concern about one of the main issues that concerns me today—the widening gap in our society between the rich and the poor. As I listened to Prime Minister's Questions last week, I noted the suggestion that things started to go seriously wrong in 1979. I will leave it to others to judge whether that is the case, but it seems to me that since that date some in our society have done incredibly well and some have done extremely badly, and that that trend has continued almost seamlessly no matter which party has been in power.
	One maiden speech that I read referred to
	"a Budget which took from the needy to give to the greedy and which made the rich richer and the poor poorer."—[ Official Report, 14 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 699.]
	That was from David Marshall in 1979. This is from another maiden speech:
	"This is all because the Government's philosophy is that the rich must get richer by way of tax cuts and that the poor must become poorer to ensure true prosperity."—[ Official Report, 27 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 1241.]
	That was from the then Member for Dunfermline, East in 1983. Both statements are criticisms with which I wholeheartedly agree. When a new measure is brought to this house by whatever Government in the coming years, that is the measure against which I will judge them. I will ask myself, "Does this measure narrow or widen the gap between rich and poor?" We are clearly in difficult economic times in this country and throughout the world. Yes, there may be a need for belt tightening by many of us, but if that does happen, it must be those who have least who tighten their belts least and those who have most who tighten their belts most.
	Let me turn to the subject of the debate: democracy and human rights. I am the most recently elected member of this House, so I have been most recently subjected to the democratic process. I would not go so far as to say that that gives me the strongest mandate of any politician in Scotland, but it does say something about how people in Scotland are thinking at this time. A growing number of voters in Glasgow, East support independence, and, despite scaremongering in some quarters, they are not afraid to vote for the party of independence. For too long, Unionist parties have sought to instil fear in the people of Scotland if they dared even to think of independence, but those scare tactics work only for so long because people eventually see through them. In this by-election, many people broke with family tradition when they voted. No longer are the people of Glasgow, East looking backwards—rather, they are looking forward in hope.
	The two countries where I have lived most to date have been Scotland and Nepal; whether England will overtake Nepal remains to be seen. In the 1980s, Nepal had a ruling monarch with elected representatives, but the latter had little power. Political parties were not even allowed, so every candidate was an independent—allegedly. However, party tensions still lay below the surface. I remember sitting in my flat in Kathmandu during an election when a random stone came flying through the window. Human rights there were clearly limited, not least in the religious field. It was against the law to change one's religion, and baptisms of new believers were generally carried out secretly at night. The most open I was able to be about my faith was at Christmas, when outdoor carol singing was allowed. However, I was still nervous that every time we went round a corner the police would be standing there. Clearly, other countries around the world have even less democracy and fewer human rights than Nepal. I am glad to say that the situation in Nepal has greatly improved over recent years, although that country still has its fair share of problems.
	In Scotland we have a variety of voting systems for each of the four main levels of representation: Europe, Westminster, the national Government and local councils. While most of that will be familiar to Members here, it is the relatively new local council system that I want to bring to their attention and commend to them. It is a system of proportional representation by single transferable vote. It has been relatively well understood by the electorate, with very few spoiled papers. It is already used by some trade unions and pensions funds. It combines an emphasis on the individual candidate and on the political party—a balance that no other system is able to achieve. I want to commend the two parties in the previous Scottish coalition for combining to introduce that excellent system in my country. I hope that it can be extended elsewhere.
	In conclusion, I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your forbearance and Members of all parties for their warm welcome.

Hugh Bayley: I welcome the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason) to this House. He has made an accomplished maiden speech, and I know that we will be hearing a great deal from him over the weeks and months to come. I wish him well during his time in this House. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate what he said about his predecessor, David Marshall. I was on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK branch executive committee when David Marshall was its chairman, and I saw the passion and diligence with which he pursued Commonwealth interests and foreign policy concerns through the association.
	I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, like many Members of my party, I paid a visit to Glasgow, East in July. I travelled by the National Express east coast rail service. National Express is an English company, with headquarters in my constituency, the City of York, and its services benefit both the Scottish economy and the English economy. In fact, it is one of those institutions that shows the interdependence of Scotland and England, and the benefits that links between those two parts of the United Kingdom bring to people in Scotland and in England.
	In Glasgow, East I knocked on doors, I spoke to many constituents and I did all that I could legally, decently and honestly to prevent the hon. Gentleman from being elected, and I failed—but he should not think that I fail in every political challenge that I take on. I warmly congratulate him on his victory. Perhaps the fact that his party can mount a challenge and capture a Labour seat that was seen as so safe before the election is a compelling illustration of the vibrancy and the fundamental strength of democracy in this country. There cannot be a multi-party democracy without opposition parties. Opposition parties can be a big headache for a ruling party, but it would be a far bigger headache if we did not have viable opposition parties in this country.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) has now slipped out of the Chamber, but his speech raised the tone of the debate. I know that at this time of night, gastric pressures make people flee from the Chamber—they are affecting me, too. I wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman were still in his place, but I hope that he will see how Members have responded to what he said. It is difficult to disagree with his conclusion on Iraq—that military intervention has done more harm than good. However, I would say to him something that the Select Committee on International Development said to the Government before the war, which was that at least as much attention ought to be paid to the task of post-war reconstruction as was paid to the task of the military campaign. The real catastrophe in Iraq has been a catastrophe of political mistakes being made in the post-war situation.
	The convincing case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made on Iraq does not, however, ring true when we go from the particular to the general. The arguments that he made on the Balkans ignore the harm that was caused by non-intervention. When he was Secretary of State for Defence, I remember going with a cross-party group of Members to NATO headquarters in Brussels to talk to people about whether there was a military response that could be made to the genocide—and I use that word, which he used in his speech—in Srebrenica and elsewhere in Bosnia. A string of ambassadors, directors and officials told us that it was difficult to intervene militarily, that the Serbs were tough fighters who held down eight German divisions in the second world war, that it was difficult mountainous country and that there was not much we could do in military terms.
	We were about to leave at the end of the day when a message came from Field Marshal Richard Vincent, who was the chairman of NATO's military committee at the time. He asked us to speak to him, and he told us a very different story. He obviously was not speaking on behalf of any Government, and he made the point that he had a NATO role at that time, not a role as a British Army officer. He said that sooner or later, Europe was going to have to take military action to stop what Serbs were doing in the former Yugoslavia, and that the longer we waited, the more battle-hardened and effective Serb regular and paramilitary troops would be. He told us a story: as a boy, he had been taken by his father to see the miracle of a Prime Minister flying back to Britain by aeroplane. He saw Chamberlain come off that aeroplane and wave that piece of paper, and he said that that was appeasement then, and he believed that not intervening militarily in Bosnia was appeasement too.  [ Interruption. ] I see that I have got my marching orders from the Whip.
	On Kosovo too, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was no genocide so we should not have intervened. At the time of military intervention, the majority of the Kosovar Albanian population had been driven out of their country, across the border into neighbouring countries. It was an unstable position, and I believe that non-intervention would have done more harm than good.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said, people sometimes use the terms "democracy" and "human rights" almost as if they are interchangeable. The ideas are related, of course. Both concepts require rulers to cede power to the people. They both imply the accountability of those with power to a broader constituency, but they are not the same thing. It is possible to have some human rights, such as habeas corpus or the right to a fair trial, without living in a democracy, but democracy cannot exist without human rights. That is why the Council of Europe requires countries to meet human rights requirements before they can join. I believe that the Foreign Secretary is right to make democracy one of the key goals of British foreign policy, but promoting democracy internationally is not easy, and I believe that distinguishing between human rights and democracy helps to highlight how Governments can promote democracy effectively.
	Western support for democracy has been tainted by the military interventions in Iraq, certainly, and in Afghanistan, to some extent. They make it clear that democracy cannot be imposed from outside. Democracy is a collective concept—without a thirst for democracy from the people, it cannot grow. It certainly cannot be imposed by military force. The best the military can do is to create conditions that allow security and the rule of law to flourish—in other words, to create human rights conditions that permit democracy to grow if there is a public thirst for it. Human rights are a precondition for democracy.
	For the past three years, I have had the great privilege of chairing the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. It was created when the Berlin wall fell, and over the years it has done extremely important work to support democrats, reformers and democratic political parties in the countries of central and eastern Europe when they were breaking free from Soviet control. It has done similar work in other parts of the world, such as Africa and the middle east. In the early years of this decade, it lost its way. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who was my predecessor, began to rebuild the organisation.
	WFD is a Foreign Office sponsored, non-departmental public body. Shortly before I was appointed to the foundation's board, the Foreign Office commissioned an independent review of the organisation from River Path Associates. The review was highly critical. It proposed a number of options, including winding up the foundation, scaling down its operations or transferring its funding responsibilities from the Foreign Office to Parliament. Some of those criticisms were completely unreasonable, but there were some problems in the organisation, and I told the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), that I was prepared to take on the appointment in order to lead a process of reform and renewal, but that if the Foreign Office wanted to close the organisation down, it should go ahead.
	I was appointed on the basis of leading a process of reform in the organisation. The Foreign Office kept its side of the bargain, and I believe that WFD has kept its part of the deal and has emerged as a stronger, more relevant and more effective organisation. I should like to thank my fellow governors and members of the board—I see one in his place tonight, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne)—and the chief executive and the staff of the foundation. I should also like to thank the staff of the political parties who implement the party-to-party foundation programmes, and the Foreign Office officials and Ministers who have supported the foundation during the three years for which I have been in the chair.
	During those three years, we have put through quite a number of reforms. We have concentrated the foundation's resources so that it now has greater impact in fewer countries and fewer specialised fields of work. We have moved the foundation's focus from being a London-based grant giver funding one-off projects to being a manager of sustained programmes of work over several years. That has led us to move some of our permanent staff from working in London to working in the field. We have reduced the percentage of the budget being spent on administration, and taken the difficult decision to make some senior management posts redundant. We have also increased our overall funding without increasing administration—

Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hugh Bayley: I am terribly short of time, because I believe that there is to be a ministerial statement soon. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I need to make some progress.
	The foundation has written a new corporate strategy, which identifies three particular strengths or niche markets for the foundation: political party development, parliamentary capacity building and local governance. We have agreed a business plan to pursue those specialisms, and to increase the organisation's turnover and budget. We have sought to build alliances with other bodies based at Westminster and elsewhere in this country that also have an interest in democracy building. They include the National Audit Office, the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the British section of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Clerk's Department's Overseas Office, the House of Commons Library, the International Bar Association, the Reuters Foundation, certain universities, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies. We have brought many of those organisations together to create a Westminster consortium.
	We have also managed to broaden the foundation's funding base. We continue to receive grant in aid worth £4.1 million a year from the Foreign Office, but in addition, we have won tranches of money from the Foreign Office for programmes of work in other countries, including Ukraine, Egypt, Serbia and Macedonia, and from the Department for International Development for work in Sierra Leone. Recently, as part of the Westminster consortium, we won a £5 million contract from DFID for parliamentary capacity building in Uganda, Mozambique, Lebanon, Yemen, Ukraine and Georgia, and we are currently negotiating what I hope will be a $15 million to $20 million contract with the United Nations Development Programme for parliamentary capacity building work in Ethiopia.
	During the past three years, the WFD has refocused its priorities and activities, and broadened its funding base. Over the next three years, the priority will be to deliver measurable impact—strengthening citizens' rights and democratic institutions—in the broader range of programmes that we have been commissioned to undertake, in order to strengthen the foundation's reputation and to enable it to continue to win contracts.
	Sadly, I do not have time to say a great deal about the foundation's work, but I believe that it makes a huge difference. For example, DFID commissioned the foundation to do nine months' work with all the political parties in Sierra Leone in relation to its elections last year. We sought to help the parties to build policy platforms based on issues rather than on ethnic differences or regional loyalties. We persuaded the parties to set out their policies on pledge cards, and we persuaded Sierra Leone public radio to organise a version of "Any Questions?". The idea of African politicians having to answer questions about their policies from members of the public was quite an innovation.
	We also supported a role-playing exercise, in which each party worked out in advance what they would do in their first day, their first week, their first month and their first three months of office if their party were elected. With the then President Kabbah, we went through the process to find out what he would do in those first days and weeks if he was not returned to office. When would he move out of the state house? When would he set up his office as leader of the opposition? What facilities would he expect to have in order to fulfil that role in Parliament? He was defeated in the election, and he did move out of the state house and become leader of the opposition.
	In Africa, it is very unusual to have such a "revolving door", involving a genuine multi-party contest at an election in which the party that was in power is defeated and a party that was not in government is elected. In Sierra Leone, however, the door revolved, and the actors changed. I believe that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy had a real part to play in ensuring that that happened.
	Having spent three years at the helm of the WFD, I have now decided to stand down. I believe that I have achieved the goals that the then Foreign Secretary set for me when I was appointed, and that a new chairman will bring new ideas and a fresh focus for the challenges ahead. I understand that the Foreign Secretary has been asked to appoint my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) to the WFD board, and I hope that the board will elect her to the chair. It would be a major asset to the foundation to have a former Foreign Office Minister, alongside my right hon. Friend Lord Foulkes, a former DFID Minister, on the board.
	The WFD does a lot with the relatively limited assets at its disposal, but I believe that it could do much more to express the UK's soft power in emerging democracies. I hope that the Government will maintain the grant in aid, because without core funding, the foundation would have serious problems. I also hope that they will look for opportunities in other countries in which the foundation could play useful roles, and then fund the WFD to undertake them. The Foreign Office and DFID should both do this, and we should be encouraging multilateral bodies such as the European Union and the United Nations to do so as well. As chair of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, I worked with three Foreign Secretaries, and I thank them for their support. I urge the Government to keep supporting the foundation, as I believe that it is one of the best assets of the Foreign Office, the Government and the United Kingdom.

Tim Boswell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). I listened to his remarks about the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and I pay warm tribute to his contribution in leading it for the past three years. It is also a privilege for me to be the first Member on the Conservative Benches to congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason) on his maiden speech, which was graceful, gracious and informative about his constituency. We ask no more than that.
	In a sense, this debate is a tribute to the power of democracy and to our ability to support each other even when we disagree with each other. I have found the insights that I have heard today fascinating and mutually reinforcing, from all the different aspects. I hope that the House will forgive me if my comments are a little more related to the legal side of human rights, because that is a personal interest and, as it happens, a familial interest of mine. I also have experience in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which I have found very stimulating and informative on this issue.
	Looking back at the history of all this, we can see the roots in world war 2, going back as far as the Atlantic charter. It was signed by the two nations of Britain and America, which Churchill described as the great democracies. It was a reaction to absolutism, aggressive war and the holocaust. I think it was also an understanding of the need to temper the powers of the democratic state, which were exercised during wartime. It was also a celebration of the worth of every individual. It is about the respect we have for individuals and groups of people in our society.
	I commend the European convention of human rights itself as a clear document that is well worth reading. It has a surprisingly strong emphasis on private autonomy, private life and private decision making. That is well instanced in article 8, which recognises the right to private life, but then says that it is subject to any overriding interest, whether it be of national security, public safety, economic well-being, concerns about disorder or crime, health or morals or, finally, the protection of the rights or freedoms of others. The default position in human rights law thus lies firmly with individual rights, and any derogations are defined only in strictly limited and specified circumstances. Bearing in mind the strong influence of British lawyers in the drafting, it expresses in codified principles the pragmatism of our common law, and it is in no sense a sanction for arbitrary acts by central Governments.
	It is perhaps not without significance that the title of today's debate omits the third leg of the Council of Europe stool, which always refers to "democracy, human rights and the rule of law". Indeed, it is under the present Government that we have repatriated the convention and required Ministers to certify the compatibility of their legislation with the convention rights. Sometimes, they do not find it very happy when that is challenged.
	Nobody has said in today's debate—but I shall—that there is sometimes a backlash against human rights, although not perhaps against the simple ones. We can all sign up to the fact that we do not want people to be maimed, tortured or subjected to arbitrary imprisonment. That is easy. The more difficult situations arise when there is a clash of rights or where we feel some sense that rights are being extended to persons who do not deserve them. That is not my view. Our problem is that we all enjoy implicit rights, but we dislike explicit rights being extended to people who do not suit—whether they be terrorists, paedophiles or even just foreigners. That argument can then turn up in the tabloid press, with a very unpleasant set of overtones.
	As I just mentioned, those who drafted the European convention recognised from the start that there were limitations occasioned by public policy and that no absolute right was expressed in the convention. This rather difficult situation—the move from the easy rights to the complex rights—has, I think, been aggravated by a number of factors. This country has seen a huge growth in administrative law and judicial review. There has been a shift from concentration on individual rights—involving whether individuals are tortured or persecuted—to issues about group actions and groups of people, often fuelled by the media or by non-governmental organisations. The increase in challenges to authority is perhaps healthy. For example, whereas food rationing would have gone through on the nod as an administrative action during the war, if we started imposing a system of milk quotas now, that would nowadays immediately become subject to judicial review.
	Where do we go now for human rights? The first and strongest point is that we need to be very careful about our own record. There is a wonderful phrase in the convention about the general principles of law being recognised by "civilised nations". I have an idea that the UK thinks of itself and defines itself as one of those nations. It is no longer any good, however, simply putting ourselves forward as a civilised nation, with the assumption that everything we do here is above reproach.
	One really stimulating aspect of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is that it has 47 member countries—all in various stages of emerging democracy and with different traditional attitudes towards human rights. Whether Her Majesty's Government like it or not, those members can bite back at us. Critical reports were recently issued about the security of our postal voting system—already referred to earlier—and an outline report has been drafted on the 42-day detention proposals. That, of course, stresses the importance of process and safeguards. I am given to understand that the other place has taken a lively and, in my view, entirely commendable decision on that matter today—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] The concept is not confined to the Council of Europe, because some rights are universal under the UN convention, and they extend to other issues such as disabilities, the rights of children and so forth.
	I am delighted to welcome the Minister for Europe to her new post and I am pleased to see in her place the Under-Secretary, who is going to wind up today's debate. I would like to provide them with a brief shopping list on human rights. I mentioned in an earlier intervention the importance of adequate resourcing for the Strasbourg Court and of following protocol 14 to improve process. I would like Ministers to look further into the whole business of Council of Europe conventions that we have signed but not ratified. A White Paper explaining why we have not ratified them—sometimes over many years—would be appropriate, even if some of them are no longer valid.
	I would also like further work to be done on the responsibility to protect both the definition of the circumstances justifying intervention and the means of securing it. Given that Ministers are now a certifying body, I would like them, along with central and local government officials, to get better training in what the conventions mean. In domestic legislation, I would like greater use of principles clauses, which we used successfully in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. I would like to see greater awareness of the concept of human rights in education, notably in history and citizenship training. Better international exchanges between interested parties to promote a common understanding of the meaning of human rights under legal systems that formally differ from one another would also be helpful, as would more independent international monitoring of each other's practices. We have nothing to hide, so we should welcome that.
	As the final item on my list of specific interventions, I would like further work to be done on preparing for intense immediate intervention in conflict and crisis situations. I pay tribute to the work done during recent conflicts in Georgia by the teams of the European Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammerberg. It is very important that we are able to send such people in, because human rights go by the board when there is warfare.
	Today is a time for thinking about the big picture. On paper, we can have all the human rights we want, but we must have a human rights culture to accompany them. Perhaps the easiest bit is democracy, because we have been at that for many years, but we need to remind the general public that human rights are their rights, and that in a sense we will all need them at one time or another, whether for the purposes of anti-discrimination or for protection from arbitrary administrative action.
	We have moved a long way. For example, I participated in consideration of legislation driven by the European Court of Human Rights to change the law on transgender people. Also, as today has shown, by adding the rule of law to complete the trio, we have made Ministers think. Sometimes, as today, we have stopped them dead in their tracks.
	In the end, however, this will be a matter of attitudes. In the spirit of the conventions, whether European or United Nations, we need to start by leaving space—whether in Britain or worldwide; it does not matter where—for people to live and flourish without unwarranted interference. That is the respect side of human rights. We need proper discretion by Government—for example, over their storing of data. We need a sense of fairness between the parties that people have to deal with. If Government have to intervene, or are the provider of a public service, people using that service should be treated with decency.
	If we can get Ministers—who are public servants, as they should be—and then their private counterparts to act in that spirit, the advances in human rights that we have made in the last half century in this country, in Europe and internationally will be secured, and we can use and extend those universal principles to improve the future functioning of this planet and, above all, of the people who live on it.
	 Debate interrupted.

Counter-Terrorism Bill

Jacqui Smith: I come to the House this evening to set out the Government's position on the Counter-Terrorism Bill. The provisions in this Bill have always been about protecting the British people—protecting them from the serious threat that we face from terrorism. My approach has always been to strike the right balance between protecting national security and safeguarding the liberty of the individual. That balance is a precious and delicate one, and it has meant, quite rightly, that our proposals on pre-charge detention have been the subject of intense parliamentary scrutiny. But, for me, there is no greater individual liberty than the liberty of individuals not to be blown up on British streets or in British skies.
	We face a terrorist threat that is at the "severe end of severe", and we have proposed in this counter-terror Bill a way in which the police and prosecutors could apply to a judge to enable them to continue an investigation of a terrorist suspect in the most difficult, most complex and most challenging of circumstances. This House has voted in favour of a reserve power, which could be used only where there is a grave and exceptional terrorist threat— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Home Secretary speak.

Jacqui Smith: And which would be accompanied by high judicial and parliamentary safeguards. But despite the considered view of all leading counter-terrorism police professionals that these powers will be necessary and should be there, ready for use if needed; despite the opinion of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the noble and learned Lord Carlile; and despite the decision of right hon. and hon. Members of this House, the other place has tonight voted to remove from the Counter-Terrorism Bill the protections that the Government believe should be in place—not to amend, not to strengthen, simply to remove.
	My priority remains the protection of the British people. I do not believe, as some hon. Members clearly do, that it is enough simply to cross our fingers and hope for the best. That is not good enough, because when it comes to national security, there are certain risks that I am not prepared to take. I am not prepared to risk leaving the British people without the protections that they need, and so instead of reintroducing the proposals for a reserve power in this House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have taken action to ensure that we have those protections in place, ready to be used if necessary.
	I have prepared a new Bill to enable the police and prosecutors to do their work—should the worst happen, and should a terrorist plot overtake us and threaten our current investigatory capabilities. Some may take the security of Britain lightly. I do not. The Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill now stands ready to be introduced if and when the need arises. It would enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to apply to the courts to detain and question a terrorist suspect for up to a maximum of 42 days. Individuals could be detained only when that was authorised by a judge. The Bill's powers would sunset automatically after 60 days. I will place a copy of the new Bill in the Library of the House.
	I will continue to press forward with the other important and necessary measures in the current Bill: tougher sentencing for terrorists, stronger powers to seize terrorists' assets, stronger powers to allow the police to remove material that they think is terrorist-related during searches, the power to take DNA and fingerprints from people on control orders, and the ability to question terrorist suspects after charge. Those measures are right. They are necessary. I want to see them enter into force as soon as possible, and I will continue to make the case for them as the Bill progresses.
	We cannot defeat terrorism through legislation alone, but where legislation can help to protect the innocent from those who would inflict atrocity upon us, I am steadfast in my determination to do the right thing for the British people. I deeply regret that some have been prepared to ignore the terrorist threat for fear of taking a tough but necessary decision.
	Let no one kid themselves that this issue can be made to go away. These are hard questions and tough questions, but however much Opposition Members may wish to duck them, Britain still needs to be protected; Britain still needs to be prepared to deal with the worst. I hope that, when it becomes necessary to introduce this Bill—as I believe it may—we can count on their support.
	I commend my statement to the House.

Dominic Grieve: Let me first thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for giving me some very short prior sight of it. I hope that she will forgive me if I ask, in view of the very short time that I have had, when she first instructed parliamentary counsel to draft this alternative piece of legislation.
	For all the way in which the Prime Minister's spin doctors have prevented the right hon. Lady from saying in straightforward terms that she is abandoning 42 days' pre-charge detention, may I say to her that many in this House, including many on her own Benches, will be delighted to learn of that decision? Can she confirm to the House what happened in the other place this evening? Will she confirm that the Government lost by 191 votes, that 24 Labour peers taking the Labour Whip voted against the Government—including Lord Irvine of Lairg, Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Lord Dubs—and that there were massive abstentions by Labour peers, so that the Government were able to muster only 118 votes from a total of well in excess of 200 peers taking the Labour Whip? Will she— [Interruption.]
	Is not the reason why the right hon. Lady has had to make this statement that, as the debate on this matter progressed over a considerable period, the arguments in favour of the Government's measure became weaker and weaker, that the Director of Public Prosecutions, a past head of the Security Service, and many senior police officers and ex-police officers all said that they could not support the measure because it lacked any necessity, and indeed that when the measure came to this House on the other occasion, it was effectively rendered unworkable by the Government's and the Prime Minister's desperate attempts to salvage it? Is it not in fact the case that the Bill was introduced by the Prime Minister for reasons that still appear highly opaque and that certainly raise the taint of party political advantage, and that he then micro-managed it into oblivion by his own endeavours?
	The right hon. Lady has presented to us this alternative piece of legislation. I find it one of the most bizarre things that I have ever read. Can she please explain why this measure is of any usefulness when, as she knows, at the start of the process, we said to her that we would be only too happy to co-operate with the Government on an amendment of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to provide for almost identical powers to be exercised in the case of an emergency? Can she please explain here this evening how the measure that she is putting forward is in any way advantageous over that proposal, which we put to her and to the Prime Minister in complete good faith? If it is so advantageous, why is she not taking the opportunity of amending the Bill to put the measures in it when it returns to the House of Commons, or is it that she knows very well that, when it was submitted to scrutiny, she and the Prime Minister would be exposed yet again for putting forward hollow and unsustainable arguments?
	I am afraid that the right hon. Lady somewhat demeans herself when she yet again returns to the argument that those who oppose the Government's measures are weak on terrorism. I have to say to her how profoundly I object to that. We on the Conservative Benches are perfectly prepared to be firm on terrorism, to take resolute measures and, if necessary, to pass difficult Bills, but they have to be credible and based on evidence, and they must not be put forward in a way that smacks of mere political posturing and gimmicks. I think that she knows in her heart, having inherited this mess, that that is exactly what this part of the Bill amounted to, and that that is why it has all come so badly unstuck. The fact that this poorly thought-out measure has gone is greatly to the credit of both Houses, but unfortunately it is not to the credit of the Government at all.

Jacqui Smith: I believe, although it has never been completely clear as we have gone through the process, that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just accepted the premise that, in order for the police and prosecutors to be able to do their job, there may come circumstances, given the complexity of the situation that we face, the danger of the terrorist threat that we face and the international nature of terrorism, where someone may need to be investigated for longer than 28 days before they can be charged. That, of course, is the basis of the Opposition's fig leaf of proposing the use of the Civil Contingencies Act, but if there is one thing that has been completely clear throughout the whole process, it is that every expert who has looked at that Act as a way of dealing with the issue—the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Select Committee on Home Affairs and others—has concluded that it would be wholly inadequate to cover off that risk.
	Therefore, we have to come back to whether the Opposition have been serious from the beginning in trying to find a way through this process. Frankly, I set out to try to build a consensus from the beginning to cover off a serious risk. The hon. and learned Gentleman and his predecessor have made no efforts to engage in that consensus building, which suggests to me that, in fact, they were the people who were not taking the issue seriously and who were not willing to look at how we deal with it.
	Those who have voted against these measures, both in this House and in the other House, are predominantly, in the vast majority, from the two Opposition parties. They are the people who should take responsibility for the defeat of these sensible and proportionate measures, and in the end, the hon. and learned Gentleman has to ask himself what he would do to protect Britain from the risk of terrorism that undoubtedly exists, and to give the police and prosecutors the powers they will need. I am clear that the interests of Britain's security must come first, which is why I have rightly produced an alternative way of safeguarding those interests. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends will support those measures if we have to introduce them.

Christopher Huhne: Whatever the Home Secretary says, this was a crushing defeat for the Government, because they not only lost the vote in the Lords, but comprehensively lost the argument, and now they are in humiliating retreat. I believe it is an old naval command to say, "Make smoke, beat the retreat", and this Bill is precisely making smoke.
	These excessive powers were a dagger-thrust at our hard-won liberties. Does the Home Secretary now recognise that the longest period of detention without charge in any comparable democracy is 12 days in Australia, which is less than half the current period in Britain, let alone what she was proposing?  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Members must allow the hon. Gentleman to be heard. It is unfair when Members, particularly on the Front Benches, shout across the Chamber.

Christopher Huhne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	Far from making us safer, which is the Home Secretary's principal contention, will she now admit that her changes, repeated in this new Bill, would have alienated minority communities in the same way that internment alienated the Catholic community in Ulster? Democracies put a torch to their own traditions at their peril, because they abandon the high ground and get down in the dirt where the terrorists want us. Does the Home Secretary now recognise, in failing to threaten the Parliament Act and in putting forward this fig leaf of temporary provisions, that her majority in the Commons was press-ganged by her Whips, and that she had no mandate from her manifesto and no moral authority to press ahead, since her majority is based on just 35 per cent. of the popular vote?

Jacqui Smith: At least the hon. Gentleman has taken a consistent position throughout this debate. He has never recognised what those who are actually engaged in countering terrorism have recognised is the case: that there may well come a time when somebody needs to be held for longer than 28 days. He has continued to use frankly fallacious arguments about comparisons. In having clear judicial oversight of detention, all our proposals and current provisions in this country are in line with our international responsibilities. We have been through all the approaches in other countries, such as in France with its investigating magistrates, which enable them, in serious cases of terrorism, effectively to hold people for longer than 28 days before they reach the equivalent of a charge.
	Frankly, when we are trying to engage in a serious debate about terrorism and the hon. Gentleman reverts, as he has done on previous occasions, to the charge that this is internment when it is fundamentally different, we know that he has run out of arguments and that he is not willing to face up to his responsibilities. I am afraid that that has been the approach that the Liberal Democrats have taken throughout this whole process.

Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary is absolutely right: these are very serious and complex issues, and she has taken the right approach tonight in deciding not to proceed with the 42 days. In respect of the new Bill, will she give the House an undertaking that she will adopt the same approach that she adopted for the previous proposed legislation and that her door will be open to ensure that all Opposition parties will be able to proceed with the Government on the basis of consensus? The best way to approach this issue, above all issues, is for the parties to work together, in order to work as one to defeat terrorism.

Jacqui Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend. The cross-party consideration of his Committee, which of course recognised that there may well come a time when somebody needs to be held for longer than 28 days, has certainly informed the process and much of the content of the Counter-Terrorism Bill. I am disappointed that the serious and considered approach taken by my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee was not reflected in engagement in discussion by Opposition parties in particular.
	The Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, which I will place in the Library tomorrow, is based fairly and squarely on the approach taken in the Terrorism Act 2006. They are well considered and understood provisions. I will, of course, want to hear any recommendations that hon. Members have, but it is important to say that the provisions have already been fully considered by the House in previous counter-terror legislation and build on the approach to pre-charge detention that has certainly been successful up to now.

David Winnick: I in no way question my right hon. Friend's sincerity, but does she accept that those of us on the Labour Benches, be it in the Commons or the Lords, who have opposed 42 days in no way underestimate the terrorist threat of those people who wish to bring terror and destruction to our country? We know, and they have to be defeated. Does she recognise that the reason why we have opposed 42 days is the lack of any compelling evidence to justify going beyond 28 days? Indeed, two former heads of MI5 have stated that they, too, are opposed to any such extension.

Jacqui Smith: I do not doubt my hon. Friend's sincerity in wanting to fight terrorism— [Interruption.] But when those whom we ask to carry out the difficult job of keeping us safe from terrorism in this country, the most senior police officers engaged in the investigations, suggest—

Keith Simpson: Andy Hayman did not.

Jacqui Smith: Actually, Andy Hayman did make it clear in his recent article that he believes that there may well be a time when longer than 28 days will need to be used.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can pontificate all he likes, but that is the case. When other senior police officers whom we task with the job say that it is necessary, and serious commentators such as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation think that it is necessary, I believe that it is right that we as a Government should respond. That is what we have tried to do in both the Counter-Terrorism Bill and the Bill that I have announced to the House this evening.

Alan Beith: If this is to be a serious discussion, does the Home Secretary really want to stand by the view that the former Lord Chancellor, the former Attorney-General and former heads of the Security Service have been prepared to ignore the terrorist threat for fear of taking a tough but necessary decision? Surely they actually believe that the measures are not necessary in their present form and could be damaging. She must engage seriously with that argument and not produce that kind of statement.

Jacqui Smith: The people to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers have been willing to engage in the debate. It is not them that I am criticising; it is his party and the Opposition, who have been unwilling to engage in that discussion.

Alun Michael: Does my right hon. Friend share my puzzlement as to why the number of days has become such a symbolic issue? Is not the real issue the balance between protecting the public and ensuring that power is not abused in respect of the innocent, whether the number of days for which somebody is detained is seven, 14, 42 or any other number? Is that not the advice that we on the Labour Benches have been listening to?

Jacqui Smith: My right hon. Friend makes a very strong point. Of course, any period of detention beyond 48 hours quite rightly requires the authorisation of the judiciary, as would any period beyond seven or 14 days or that in our proposals. He makes an important point; people in this House have to be very confident that there will be no case in the near future in which somebody needs to be held for 29, 30 or 31 days in order to complete an investigation and bring them in front of the court. I do not believe that people in this House are confident of that, and the fact that they have not been willing to engage in how we solve that problem is at the very least disappointing, and in many cases downright irresponsible.

David Davis: The Home Secretary would do better to recognise that the reason why she has faced the biggest defeat in the Lords in living memory is not that two Lord Chancellors, Attorneys-General, chief constables and heads of MI5 take security lightly, but that they find her proposals unnecessary and intolerable. When she was offered a year ago the option of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, she turned it down in the first instance because she said that declaring a state of emergency would give a propaganda coup—a publicity coup—to the terrorists. Can she explain to the House how having a full debate on a whole new Bill will give any less of a propaganda coup to the terrorists?

Jacqui Smith: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the case, because he was involved in discussions with me. I just regret that he made completely clear from when we first started these discussions that he had no intention of finding a way to help us deal with a situation that he himself recognises might exist—where somebody needs to be held beyond 28 days. I regret that he felt unable to engage with us in something that would have been deliverable. I hope that if we need to introduce legislation again, as I fear we might, people will engage with that constructively for the good of the security of this country.

John Reid: The Home Secretary is right tonight. She is right that the primary responsibility of Government is the security of the nation. She is right that the basic human right of all our people is the right to life and to live their life without the fear of losing it. She is also right to have emergency legislation, as the police have clearly indicated that they can envisage circumstances in which they might need such powers. However, she is also right to seek a consensus and, therefore, not to proceed tonight. The best basis for national security is national consensus, and although it has proved difficult in the past, may I therefore ask her if she will respond to the unrequited measures that she previously introduced by being positive again, and by engaging the Home Affairs Committee and the Opposition parties? If nothing else, that challenges their affirmation tonight that they are willing to reach a consensus on these matters to give security to the nation, and if we do that, we will be in a far better position for the whole House.

Jacqui Smith: My right hon. Friend, who made very important steps forward in our ability in this country to counter terrorism, makes a strong point. He started this process seeking consensus, and I can certainly give him a commitment that I will continue this process seeking consensus for the good of the security of this country.

Pete Wishart: What a cataclysmic climbdown; we could almost hear the gear clunking into reverse. What we have is an undead measure—neither alive nor dead—waiting for the parliamentary stake through the heart. Why the petulant defiance? The right hon. Lady should accept that no one agreed with her, that nobody felt that this was required and that this measure is now lost.

Jacqui Smith: The responsibility of a Home Secretary is to continue to cover off the risks to this country that are identified to her from the serious threat of terrorism. The hon. Gentleman would have done this country more service had he focused on that, rather than on making cheap points about my presentation.

Russell Brown: As someone who served on the Committee that considered the Bill, it became clear to me at a very early stage that consensus was unlikely to be reached in order to get the consent of both Houses to getting this legislation through, and that the Civil Contingencies Act would never achieve what the Bill sought to achieve. Although I fear that we will have to return to this issue at some stage, I sincerely hope that Members of this House recognise that we do not wish to revisit it at a stage where we have lost significant life in the UK as a result of further terrorist activity.

Jacqui Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for the contribution that he made in Committee, where, as he will know, the Conservative party did not table a single amendment to the provisions on pre-charge detention. That is a telling indication of an unwillingness to engage in a constructive process to find a way through this. He is right to say that all of us have a responsibility to find the best way to protect this country at a time when we may well need to extend the tools for those investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences. That is what I have sought to do throughout this process, and it is what I shall continue to do.

Julian Lewis: Baroness Manningham-Buller is probably the most qualified person in either House to assess the proposals for keeping people in jail without charge for three months. The Home Secretary has accepted that Baroness Manningham-Buller's arguments were sincere, patriotic and couched in terms of the best security for the country. The arguments that Baroness Manningham-Buller uses are indistinguishable from the arguments used by the Opposition Front-Bench teams. Why does the Home Secretary accept one person as patriotic but denounce those of us who agree with a professional such as the noble Baroness as unpatriotic and cavalier about the defence of this country from terrorism?

Jacqui Smith: Because Baroness Manningham-Buller has a proud record of working to try to find a way through the difficult issues. Although many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have in the past taken important action against terrorism, I just feel that they have fallen short in trying to find a way through on this particular issue.

George Howarth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the robust way in which she has responded to the vote in the House of Lords earlier this evening. Does she accept that matters such as this one inevitably come down to good judgment, and that, in the end, most people outside this House will accept that she has exercised good judgment and that those who have opposed this measure have made an error of judgment?

Jacqui Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for those words. I have certainly attempted to approach this matter, as did my predecessors and others, in a way that will enable the greatest amount of information and contribution to finding a way through. I will continue to do that, but I will also continue to put what I believe to be the best interests of the British people and their security at the heart of the decisions that I take.

Bob Spink: My constituents are in the front line of the terrorist threat in this country, and they will welcome this Bill. Will the Home Secretary continue to press forward to find sensible and proportionate measures that will increase the protection of my constituents and other people in this country from these inhumane terrorists who are threatening and targeting this country right now?

Jacqui Smith: There have been many ways in the past year or so in which the hon. Gentleman has been brave. He has certainly been brave in speaking up for the best interests of the security of his constituents, in the face of opposition, and I thank him for his continued support.

Tony Lloyd: Although I understand why my right hon. Friend makes her announcement tonight, may I tell her that once the party politicking dies down, three things will stand out? The first is that she sought consensus across this House and could not find it. The second is that senior police officers and police forces such as my own, which are used to dealing with terrorism, are convinced that the time may well come when more than 28 days will be needed. The third is that she must offer the British public the kind of protection that is adequate to tackle that terrorist threat.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is only right that I thank him and other Labour Members for having engaged in such a constructive way in making sure that we safeguard the interests of our constituents. I shall certainly want to carry on doing that, alongside like-minded colleagues.

Daniel Kawczynski: Obviously we acknowledge the importance of this subject, but this House was debating the important issue of democracy and human rights in this country and around the world. Why did the Home Secretary feel it so important to interrupt that debate? Why could she not wait an hour and a half, until 10 o'clock, to make her announcement?

Jacqui Smith: Sometimes I think that you cannot win in this place. I thought that it was quite important, given the nature of the security issues involved, to come to the House and to make the statement as quickly as possible. Plenty of people turned up to hear me.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Home Secretary understand that those of us who voted against 42 days did so because we thought that it was our duty to preserve liberties in this country and not to destroy relationships between different ethnic communities in this country? Will she please explain what is meant by the Bill that she will place in the Library tomorrow? Will it be some kind of lurking cudgel with which we will be threatened whenever an emergency appears so that the House can rush through some special legislation? Should she not accept that the principle of 42 days has been comprehensively defeated, both publicly and in the House of Lords, and that it is perhaps time to move on and forget about these excessively long periods of detention?

Jacqui Smith: I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that the reason for bringing forward the legislation in the first place was a recognition that the best way to defend all the communities in this country is to ensure that we take their security seriously. We are all clear in this House that terrorist atrocities have killed and maimed with no fear or favour when it comes to communities or religious backgrounds, and that everybody needs the sort of protection that comes from counter-terror legislation. I have drafted the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill so that when and if it is needed, we will have those protections in place for my hon. Friend's constituents, for mine and for the rest of the British public.

Alistair Burt: In dealing with the financial crisis, the Government have invested a certain amount of effort and taken a certain amount of political capital out of their efforts in order to produce consensus. It might have been better to have followed that course than to have reacted to the result in the other place in the way in which the Home Secretary has tonight, castigating opponents such as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) in the manner in which she has and in terms that she might regret privately. Will she now answer the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and tell the House when the draft legislation that she has produced was first given to parliamentary counsel and when counsel was first instructed to deliver it?

Jacqui Smith: We started looking at the legislation last week because I was concerned that, whatever happened and whatever decision was taken in the House of Lords, my primary responsibility, which was to ensure that we had in place the protections necessary for the British people, should be pursued.

Rob Marris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is inconsistent and unprincipled for Conservatives such as the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), as well as organisations such as Liberty, to seek to clothe themselves in the Magna Carta and civil liberties while, conversely, they propose alternative diminutions of civil liberties, such as post-charge questioning, the use of intercept evidence at trial and 42 days' detention under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004? Is not that wholly unprincipled?

Jacqui Smith: If I have taken one thing from our discussions on the Bill, it has been my hon. Friend's incisive critique at every stage. I thank him for his engagement and wholeheartedly agree with his point.

Philip Davies: We are all aware of how serious the terrorist threat is to this country. If the threat is as serious as the Home Secretary has set out this evening, is she prepared to scrap the Human Rights Act, which is one of the things that stops dangerous threats to this country being kicked out? It is no good her lecturing the House on how the Opposition will not take terrorism seriously if she is not prepared at least to look again at that new Labour shibboleth.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman might like to have a word with those on his Front Bench—and particularly with the shadow Home Secretary about his views. The proposals in the legislation were wholly in line with the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, so, frankly, the hon. Gentleman is raising a complete red herring.

Anne Snelgrove: The ordinary people of this country look to their elected representatives in this House to provide them with adequate prevention of and protection against terrorism. Will my right hon. Friend assure me and my constituents that she has taken that into account in framing her emergency Bill?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is our responsibility as elected representatives to put the security of the British people at the heart of what we do and to engage seriously in trying to find a solution to some of the most difficult and sensitive issues that we will face in balancing collective and national security against individual liberty. I believe that we had done that in the Bill, but by bringing forward the emergency provisions as I have done, I am ensuring that we are covering that risk if and when we need to use them.

Philip Hollobone: If the Home Secretary's arguments are so powerful and persuasive why does she think there was such a haemorrhage of support from her Benches in the other place this afternoon?

Jacqui Smith: Let us be quite clear: this House voted for the provisions. Labour Members in majority in the other place voted for the provisions. The responsibility for not being willing to take the provisions forward rests with the Opposition party and they will have to explain to the British people why they did not take this country's security seriously.

Tom Levitt: I voted for 42 days in the summer and I would have voted for 42 days again had that Bill come back to the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a time and a place for discussing the relative powers and responsibilities of the two Chambers of Parliament, as would have happened had she sought to use the Parliament Act, but that given the other pressures on the Government today and our other responsibilities, that time is not now?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is of course also the case that there are other important elements of the Bill—whether post-charge questioning, strengthening sentencing for terrorist offences or tightening up the provisions on asset freezing—that I believe are right and should come into force as quickly as possible. That is why I thought it important to take forward those provisions in this Session and to get them on to the statute book as quickly as possible for the protection of people in this country.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I very much welcome the new precedent set by the Home Secretary this evening in coming to the House after a defeat in the House of Lords and explaining to the House of Commons the position that the Government intend to take. However, in future, can we make sure that it takes place at the end of business so as not to take time from debates? Can we also ensure that in future we have regular statements every time the Government are defeated in the House of Lords?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it will help the right hon. Gentleman if I tell the House that it is for Ministers to judge whether they need to make statements to the House. Although I need to be given prior notice of their intention, neither my permission nor that of the House is required, as is made clear in "Erskine May", page 358—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Order. I am speaking. The Secretary of State has clearly decided that this is a matter of urgency, but I did say that the Opposition should have a copy of the statement in advance.

Promoting Democracy and Human Rights

Debate resumed.
	 Question again proposed,
	That this House has considered the matter of promoting democracy and human rights.

Stephen Crabb: I strongly welcome this debate on democracy and human rights, albeit that it has been truncated. It is easy to forget or underestimate how closely the proceedings of the House are watched and observed by individuals and groups across the world, including in countries that have nothing like the freedoms we enjoy. As a number of other Members have observed in their contributions, the debate is timely, as we are approaching the 60th anniversary of the signing of the universal declaration on human rights on 10 December 1948.
	Members will recall that last year we celebrated another anniversary in the human rights calendar—the bicentennial of the Act to abolish slavery—and 2007 saw a string of events and initiatives celebrating the decision that the House took 200 years ago. Some of the initiatives tried to link what happened then with the campaigns to eradicate modern forms of slavery. I think in particular of the work done on human trafficking, a clear example of modern slavery.
	For all the good work associated with the anti-slavery celebrations last year, 2007 was a year in which progress in tackling human rights abuses actually went backwards. From Burma to Zimbabwe, from Darfur to China, from Sri Lanka to any number of conservative Islamic regimes, human rights violations continued on a wide and systematic basis, and the international community was shown again to be weak and complacent in the face of atrocity and repression. Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International, said in Amnesty's 2008 annual report that
	"2007 was characterised by the impotence of Western governments and the ambivalence or reluctance of emerging powers to tackle some of the world's worst human rights crises".
	The fact remains that injustice, inequality and impunity are still the hallmarks of our world. We are coming towards the end of 2008, and no one can honestly say that it looks like this has been a more positive year for addressing human rights abuses internationally.
	The question that we have all been trying to grapple with this afternoon is: what does putting human rights at the heart of foreign policy mean in practice in a country such as the UK, which still enjoys a measure of international leadership through the UN Security Council, the G8 and the EU, in an increasingly multilateral, interdependent world in which realism and the national interest are still vital, legitimate drivers of our interaction with other nation states? The starting point is to recognise that it is very much in our national interest to seek to push forward an international human rights agenda. Expanding political freedoms are often, but not always, accompanied by higher living standards, new stability and economic expansion around the world, all of which is good for the UK as it seeks to trade and interact globally.
	That was recognised 60 years ago when the international community came together in an unprecedented way to affirm that whatever national, ideological or cultural differences and interests divided the world, those divisions were superseded by a deep common interest in providing the conditions for human freedom to flourish, and so emerged the universal declaration, about which a number of hon. Members have already spoken.
	Anyone who has spent any time considering the UN's performance in defending those principles will question whether there is anything substantial to celebrate at the 60th anniversary of the signing of the declaration. For example, anyone who has examined the track record of the ludicrous UN Commission on Human Rights, the body that was supposed to take a lead on some of these issues, will know that it became a safe haven for tyrants and dictators. It was finally wound up two years ago. Depressingly, so far, the replacement UN Human Rights Council shows too many signs of repeating the bad old ways of its predecessor body.
	Amnesty International's 2008 report states:
	"World leaders owe an apology for failing to deliver on the promise of justice and equality in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...In the past six decades, many governments have shown more interest in the abuse of power or in the pursuit of political self-interest, than in respecting the rights of those they lead."
	The responsibility to protect was one recent attempt by the international community to address the question of how we could realistically and practically defend the interests of those who are suffering from gross, systematic human rights abuses. As has already been discussed, at the heart of the matter is whether states have complete unconditional sovereignty over their own affairs, or whether the international community has the right to intervene militarily in a country for humanitarian purposes. It is three years since the doctrine of the responsibility to protect was first enunciated, and it has yet to be invoked. Time and again the international community has flinched and found a justification for inaction, in exactly the same way as it did 14 years ago when the world stood by as a brutal genocide was perpetrated in Rwanda.
	Earlier this year, there was a strong case for intervention under the responsibility to protect after Cyclone Nargis hit Burma, with resulting humanitarian disaster. The Burmese Government deliberately withheld aid from its citizens, thereby turning a natural disaster into a man-made genocidal disaster.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman mentions Burma. Does he agree that the generals in Burma, who are guilty of the egregious crimes against humanity that he so vividly describes, should be referred to the International Criminal Court?

Stephen Crabb: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know that he has a deep personal interest in these issues. The truth is that when it comes to real war crimes, real genocide and mass bloodshed, the international community would rather skirt around the issue, and bury its head in international relations theory, than find a real practical response and help those who desperately need it. We saw that once again in Darfur. Amnesty International describes Darfur as
	"the litmus test for the international community to show its resolve in addressing egregious human rights violations; to date it has failed to meet this test."
	From Rwanda to Darfur and Burma, as many people have said, it seems to be a case of "never again, all over again". However, as an international community, we cannot retreat from our responsibility to protect. Now that that doctrine has been formulated, it is our duty to press forward and work out practical ways in which that will make a difference in the world in which we live. The UK Government must show commitment to translating the responsibility to protect into willingness to act in instances in which states clearly fail to protect their populations from genocide, gross war crimes, ethnic cleansing and serious crimes against humanity.
	I shall briefly touch on the issue of religious freedom, which a couple of Members have mentioned. Article 18 seeks to protect religious freedom, and protects
	"the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change...religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others...to manifest...belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
	Across the world, however, that fundamental universal human right is being denied, eroded, curtailed and chipped away.
	We have heard mention of what happened in Orissa in India, and I do not wish to go over that ground in too much detail, other than to say that I have received reports from members of the Indian diaspora in the UK and from non-governmental organisations. The Indian Government's commitment to upholding the principle of religious freedom is not in doubt, but what is in doubt is the effectiveness of their police and justice mechanisms quickly to tackle instances of inter-religious conflict and attacks on Christian, Muslim or Buddhist communities by other faith groups. I encourage Ministers to discuss that sensitively and maturely with the Indian Government, who are sensitive about other countries prying into what they regard as internal affairs. However, there has been huge global interest in the appalling acts of violence in recent months, and I encourage the Government to use their influence with the Indian Government and offer what support we can to ensure that the violence is ended and the perpetrators brought to justice.
	In the past few days in Iraq, according to CNN last night, 13 Christians have been killed, and nearly 1,000 Christian families displaced in and around Mosul, where radical Muslim groups have threatened the local Christian community: either they must convert to Islam, leave the city or face death. The Interior Ministry has rightly condemned that, but it is worth pointing out that we have troops who are fighting for a democratic, liberal future for Iraq, so we must offer the Iraqi Government whatever support we can to ensure that the curtailment of religious freedom, whatever group is responsible for the attacks, is nipped in the bud and that we uphold the best principles of religious freedom.
	May I conclude on the issue of child soldiers, which has been mentioned in passing times several times in our debate? It is obscene that the UN should say that there are an estimated 250,000 child soldiers in active service today—a shocking indictment of the international community's failure to tackle the problem. Again, Burma—so often it is Burma—has the highest proportion of child soldiers of any army on earth, but there are child soldiers in Chad, Sudan and many other countries. We have also heard reports from Gaza and Iraq of children being used or trained as terrorists and suicide bombers. Ministers in the Department for International Development recently worked on initiatives, but Ministers in the Foreign Office should see what collaborative action should be undertaken, both intergovernmentally and with the NGO sector, which remains extremely concerned about the issue, to see whether things can be progressed.

Daniel Kawczynski: I am afraid that I have only six minutes, so I shall curtail my speech.
	May I begin by paying tribute to the chairman of the Shrewsbury branch of Amnesty International, Mr. Martin Beardwell, a long-standing Liberal Democrat councillor who does a tremendous job in chairing that important organisation? I recently attended one of its meetings, and was interested to see my constituents' dedication and commitment to promoting human rights around the world.
	I will make just two major points. The Minister started her speech by referring to the European Union. In my view, the EU is totally unaccountable because it uses the proportional representation system for electing Members of the European Parliament. Three years ago, I started saying at large public meetings in my constituency that I would give anybody £100 if they could name our region's seven Members of the European Parliament—needless to say, I did not lose a penny. I now ask people to name two, and I have still not lost a penny. Nobody knows who the MEPs representing Shropshire are because none of them lives, works, has offices or holds surgeries there. Clearly, the gap between those elected and their constituents has widened vastly, and it is more and more difficult to hold those politicians to account. I am passionately against that; it is why I am chairman of the all-party group for the continuation of first past the post. I truly believe that that system is the only way of holding politicians directly accountable to their electorates.
	I am also very against the Government's current policy of merging elections. They realise that very few people want to turn out to vote in European elections, so they throw in a few other elections on the same day. In Shrewsbury in June, we will now have three elections on the same day: the European elections, the elections for the new unitary authority that the Government have imposed on us and elections for the town council. Furthermore, there will be a general election if the Prime Minister so wishes—potentially, there will be four different elections in Shrewsbury on the same day. I have written to the Secretary of State of the responsible Department about the issue, expressing my concern at how the Government are mismanaging the election diary. We have seen what chaos there was in Scotland when there were various elections there on the same day, and I am concerned that that will happen in England.
	The Minister referred to the Commonwealth only once, and very briefly. For me, the Commonwealth is the most important organisation of which we are part. I believe that its members are part of the same family, and Commonwealth countries mean far more to me and our history as a country than do members of the European Union. I pay tribute to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Mr. Andrew Tuggey and the workers at the House of Commons for their tremendous work in bringing Members from this Chamber to Commonwealth countries to interact directly with people and talk about important issues.
	This debate has been very general, but I shall give the Minister one specific example of an issue; my office sent her a copy of the relevant article today in the post. The article is from the 4 September 2008 edition of the  New Statesman, pages 24 and 29. A citizen of Cameroon, a Commonwealth country, has claimed asylum in the United Kingdom. She claimed political abuse and said that she would feel threatened if she returned to her home country. I ask the Minister to look into the issue and give me a reply. I have tried to get in touch with the British high commission in Cameroon and I have spoken to the Cameroon high commission here in London about the case. It is extremely important that Ministers interact with Commonwealth countries if their citizens seek asylum in this country. We should hold Commonwealth countries to the same standards as apply in our own country and the European Union. There should be more scrutiny and analysis of what is going on in Cameroon, given that its own citizens are claiming political persecution and coming to the UK to seek refuge. I hope that I will get a reply from the Minister.
	Finally, I turn to Georgia. The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee spoke about the conflict between Georgia and Russia. I was concerned by his comments, because I believe that the Russians behaved absolutely outrageously in attacking that relatively small and defenceless country. I pay tribute to the political leaders of various Baltic countries, Poland and other European countries who went to Tbilisi during the summer to show solidarity with the President of Georgia.
	The Russians always show aggression when they see the Atlantic relationship as being weak. When the British Prime Minister and the American President have not had a very close working relationship—for example, in the case of Jimmy Carter and Callaghan—that is when the Russians smell and sense weakness, and that is when they pounce. Unfortunately, the current Prime Minister is a foreign affairs novice who does not get on very well with President Bush, and that is why the Russians behaved so outrageously.

Keith Simpson: This has been a rather disrupted debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) reminded the House, this debate on the Government's human rights report, the Foreign Affairs Committee's reply and, hot off the press—it seems that the Government printers have been working overtime in the past 24 hours—the Government's response to that, would usually take place in Westminster Hall on a Thursday afternoon. We should be grateful that because of the Government's incompetence in managing their legislative programme they have had to use this debate as nothing more than a stocking filler for this afternoon. The Minister is frowning, but that is the fact of the matter. Despite that, we have had a very good, wide-ranging debate. I particularly enjoyed the way in which the Minister read her Foreign Office brief, which covered a less than broad range of issues, unlike what was said by many of her colleagues.
	As many Members have said, it is not easy to get a balance between the practical objectives of a national foreign policy and human rights; indeed, the two things may sometimes be contradictory. It appears that the balance of human rights is sometimes tipped in favour of those who commit violence and deny human rights to others. Ultimately, it is in the nature of democracies often to have to carry out wars against terrorists in the full glare of publicity and in the view of their own people, and sometimes they have to deny themselves the kind of actions that might be pressed on them by the military and the security forces. Sadly, as all the reports point out, there are many examples in countries throughout the world of both security forces and terrorists resorting to torture. In the past, our own country has been arraigned on that account on occasions when it has fought counter-insurgency. As a historian, the lesson that I draw is that torture is not only counter-productive but a corrosive element within any counter-insurgency forces, which invariably hands a valuable weapon to the other side, even if they are terrorists. We judge these matters through the prism of democracy: free elections, the election of democratic Governments, an independent judiciary, an independent media, political control of the armed forces and police, total transparency and adherence to international law.
	Several hon. Members rightly pointed to the role of British parliamentarians in promoting democracy. I would like to add my praise and congratulations to those at the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which has played a valuable role over many years. They are frequently unsung heroes and heroines in working not only with parliamentarians and others in this country but with those in countries out in the field. The Atlantic Council of the United States, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and, of course, our own Commonwealth Parliamentary Association have all carried out a valuable role involving many parliamentarians in all parts of the House.
	Let me turn briefly to some of the interventions and speeches made during the debate. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), a former Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and a man who has carried out a vast amount of work for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, gave us a short history of parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom. He had a cup-half-full line that we are in danger of forgetting: however much we draw up lists of countries that are failing in their progress towards democracy and human rights, many are striving towards those aims. The list he gave ranged from Albania to Tunisia. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary will respond to his comments that both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development used weasel words in their annual reports about promoting democracy, but I hope she will take them on board, and say that both Departments should be proud of raising that particular issue.

Bruce George: Could the hon. Gentleman ask  Hansard to delete "Tunisia" and insert "Morocco"?

Keith Simpson: The right hon. Gentleman would undoubtedly make a good editor for a magazine. I happily take his positive intervention.
	The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, talked a great deal, and with much knowledge and experience, on women's rights and representation, and gave many examples at home and abroad. I said to her beforehand that I would tease her on this matter: the Conservative party may, at times, be regarded as a very conservative party, but I remind the House that 160 years ago the leader of the Conservative party became the first Jewish Prime Minister, and a quarter of a century ago we elected the first woman to be a party leader, who then became Prime Minister. As yet, the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have failed to do that. With regard to theory and practice, the Conservative party appears to be slightly ahead of those parties.
	The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, made a wide-ranging speech on many issues, and he touched on the issue of the US Republican party's idea of a league of democracies. That was touched on by other hon. Members, and perhaps we need to look at many of our international organisations—the United Nations, NATO and others—to see whether, in the words of a former Home Secretary, they are fit for purpose, judged against the criteria laid down in the report of the hon. Member for Ilford, South, or the challenges that we will face in future.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) made a robust speech, claiming that the Government were confused in their approach to democracy and human rights, and he referred to the late Robin Cook's desire to produce an ethical foreign policy in 1997. Of course, the most important point that my right hon. and learned Friend raised, which caused some disagreement, was that military intervention in areas involving democracy and human rights usually creates more problems than it resolves, which was touched on again almost immediately by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright).
	The hon. Gentleman quoted Sidney Webb—that will have thrown a number of colleagues who do not know who Sidney Webb was—who spoke of democracy as a way of disciplining private power. The hon. Gentleman also emphasised the importance of links between democracy and human rights, defended liberal interventionism, and said that it was through membership of organisations such as the European Union that Britain could enhance its influence. I went along with his arguments some of the way, but in practice, sadly—this is not entirely the fault of successive British Governments—the EU, when trying to get political or military forces together in providing military aid, has not been dreadfully effective to date.
	We welcomed the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason) as a new Member for the Scottish National party. He made a good maiden speech, and also put forward some points relating to the debate, and we wish him well in his membership of the House. The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) made the wonderful remark that the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea had raised the level of the debate. I do not know what he meant by that, but it appeared to cause some confusion among those who had spoken previously. It was, however, meant in the most positive way, because my right hon. and learned Friend raised an issue that we are still debating: at what stage do we use military force where there are humanitarian problems? I also recognise once again the work of the hon. Member for City of York as chairman of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. He put in a lot of hard work in that capacity.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) spoke out against the degree of extra noise in relation to the legal aspects of human rights. He has considerable experience in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) is chairman of the Conservative human rights commission, and has taken an active role on our side in pushing this agenda forward. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) spoke passionately, as usual, about the European Union and the fact that it was unaccountable. He also rightly emphasised the importance of the role of the Commonwealth, which is recognised across the Floor.
	We have ranged widely over this report on human rights. Hon. Members have spoken passionately, not least about getting the balance right between the realpolitik of foreign policy and the principles in which we believe and which we wish to push forward. There are no easy answers for any Government attempting to persuade another country—especially one with the history, the culture, the memory and the sheer size of China—that they disagree fundamentally with many of the ways in which it carries out its government and in which it protects its human rights. However, that does not stop us, as parliamentarians, putting pressure on such countries, or on our own Government.
	I want briefly to raise three aspects of the Government's report, and to highlight issues that I feel the Government need to address. The first is the issue of Burma, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who is no longer in his place, has spoken passionately. Last week, I was lucky enough to meet Andrew Kirkwood, the director of Save the Children in Burma. He has worked in that country for four years, and has led relief efforts for the charity after Cyclone Nargis. The cyclone was a terrible event and a great national disaster, but it was the total indifference and cruelty of the Burmese military that, at times, impeded the humanitarian aid and meant that tens of thousands of their own people died or suffered awfully from disease and neglect. One of the statistics that Andrew Kirkwood gave me was that something like 40 per cent. of children under the age of five in Burma die from measles, diphtheria and other such common diseases.
	I know that Burma is not the only country in which such things occur, but I want to raise with the Minister the fact that Save the Children is on the ground doing wonderful work there, at times in spite of the opposition of the senior generals. Andrew Kirkwood pointed out that, at a lower level, Save the Children is getting some degree of co-operation in Burma. He was particularly impressed by the role of the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which put an enormous amount of pressure on the Burmese regime after Cyclone Nargis.
	Our Government have agreed on the importance of the responsibility to protect in any situation in which Governments are "unable or unwilling" to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity. In relation to Burma, will the Minister update the House on what discussions have taken place at international level to move forward that concept from the theoretical to the practical? This issue was being discussed at the time, and it is of fundamental importance to all of us.
	The second issue that I wish to raise is that of Zimbabwe. Does the Minister agree that it is now high time for the international human rights observer mission to go to that country? Will she provide an update on what progress has been made to that end? It seems to all of us that Mugabe, the old crocodile, is merely playing politics again, and that we have almost gone back to square one. It is only through international pressure that we will get any shift in that area.
	The final area is Somalia. I agree with the Foreign Affairs Committee that the FCO annual report fails to pay sufficient attention to that country's severe human rights crisis. Whatever we say about Burma, Zimbabwe and—God save us—even Darfur, Somalia is one of the world's worst failed states. It is in total humanitarian crisis. Nearly half of the population, 3.25 million people, are now in need of emergency aid—a 77 per cent. increase since the beginning of this year—and 1.1 million people are displaced.
	We all recognise that trying to resolve this problem is not an easy matter, but the Foreign Affairs Committee was absolutely right to say that this is one area that really should be a major priority. At one stage Somalia was a British dependency, so if nothing else, we have a great historical link here. I would like to see Somalia as one issue that Ministers will want to take forward over the next year. When we return in a year's time to debate the next report, I hope that we will see that some progress has been made.
	Almost by chance, this has been a good debate. People on all sides have spoken with a great deal of passion. In many respects, I do not regret the Government's decision to make a statement at 8.30 this evening. I am taking advantage of my position at the Dispatch Box because this is an issue about the balance between legislation and human rights, but I personally regret having a Home Secretary preach to me and to my colleagues—many of whom have lost friends through terrorism, Minister—about being soft on terrorism. Get real!

Gillian Merron: This has been a wide-ranging, informed and often passionate debate. I would like to thank for their contributions the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), the hon. Members for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). I also congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason) on his maiden speech. I recall that when I made mine, I was followed by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk, so who knows where the hon. Gentleman might find himself one day.
	Human rights and democracy have a resonance that few other issues can match. We can all remember the image of women queuing up to vote for the first time in Afghanistan, and queues of a different nature—for food—in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. We in the UK have a mission to promote human rights and democracy not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is in our interests. They are integral to all that we do, whether in working for peace in the middle east, in the functioning of international organisations such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the EU, or in our consular work, including support for the victims of forced marriage, prisoners facing execution and children illegally taken abroad by a parent.
	The promotion of democracy and human rights is integral to what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is all about and it underpins its every priority, whether in combating the global scourge of terrorism and its causes; preventing conflict and fostering its resolution; promoting a high-growth, low-carbon global economy; or strengthening institutions such as the UN, the EU and the Commonwealth, through which the international community can most effectively come together to make a difference in the world.
	In the short time available, I will endeavour to deal with some of the main themes that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe did not cover earlier. We believe that the United Nations Human Rights Council contributes to the protection and promotion of human rights globally. I would not suggest that it is a perfect institution, but some steps forward have been taken, as we have heard in our debate. The new universal periodic review process will, for the first time in the UN's history, ensure that the human rights position in every UN member country is examined on a regular basis.  [Official Report, 16 October 2008, Vol. 480, c. 5MC.]In addition, there will be a discussion of human rights in specific countries as a standing item on the agenda of the Human Rights Council—an item that was not on the old commission's agenda. Membership of the council depends on the votes of all UN members. While we might disagree with some members on a number of human rights issues, it is our view that continued engagement is the best way forward if we are to continue to win the arguments.
	On the UN Durban review conference and the world conference against racism, I certainly confirm our immense disagreement with the events that took place in 2001. We do not want to see a repeat of them. In particular, we condemn the featuring, which was outright, of the anti-Semitism that we heard in the NGO forum. I can tell the House that we are participating in negotiations in Geneva at the moment and that we will reassess our position when the preparatory committee ends this week.
	I share the deep concern for the prolonged suffering of the people of Zimbabwe. We want the political agreement that was reached in Harare to work. EU colleagues discussed and agreed on that early today. If there is no further progress towards a democratic resolution, we will have to consider introducing further targeted measures. To be effective, the agreement must achieve an improvement in the lives of the ordinary people of Zimbabwe and restoration of respect for human rights. With the international community, we stand ready to support the recovery of Zimbabwe and to respond to the needs of the new Government, but they must, as a Government, show themselves committed to reform, including respect for human rights.
	On Burma, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Aylesbury, for Preseli Pembrokeshire and for Mid-Norfolk, I share the immense concern for the appalling suffering of the Burmese people, which was made yet more acute, as we have heard, by the devastating Cyclone Nargis in May. We welcome the release of several political prisoners last month, but the truth is that 2,000 remain behind bars and political freedoms are completely absent. However, let us remind ourselves that, after the cyclone, the UK was at the forefront of international efforts to convince the regime to accept international aid.
	To respond to the fair point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk, we believe that states have responsibility to provide humanitarian assistance to their populations and while the responsibility to protect applies in the context of four crimes—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing—it does not preclude the broader responsibility of states to provide for the security and welfare of their populations.
	After the cyclone, our absolute priority was to get aid as quickly as possible to those who desperately needed it. We judged—I believe correctly, as we look back—that by working with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the UN we would manage to establish an aid delivery mechanism supported by the Burmese and that that would indeed be the most effective solution to that crisis.
	On Colombia, I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South, who ably chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, to a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary following the visit just last week of the Colombian Foreign Minister:
	"Those guilty of abuses—whoever they are—must receive justice for their actions. Colombia's people—particularly those most vulnerable: indigenous communities, the displaced, human rights defenders and trade unionists—deserve the full protection of the law, and the support of both the Colombian Government and its international partners."
	I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to pursue that.
	Guantanamo Bay was also raised by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire. I make it clear once again that the position of the Government is that that detention facility should be closed. I listened carefully to the caution counselled by my hon. Friend. We hope that the new US Administration will give fresh impetus to the wish of the US Government to reduce the number of those detained at Guantanamo Bay and to move towards closure of that detention facility.
	The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire referred to the role of women in promoting democracy. Women are disproportionately affected by conflict, and must clearly play a role in its resolution. The United Kingdom commits itself actively to promoting the rights of women by giving them a voice, jobs, education and the right not to die in childbirth. It has supported the Afghan Government's micro-finance programme, which has given women better opportunities to secure finance to create work through creating business. In Ghana, through the efforts of civil society, it has supported demands for legislation against domestic violence, which is now in place.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea got the debate going on an issue on which he feels strongly, and brought his knowledge to bear. While I respect his judgment on that issue, my view is that military intervention is not and has never been the course of first or only resort. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) that to rule it out is to deny what may present a way forward that has eluded us through any other means, but it is not to be taken lightly; it is only one possibility.
	Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase that I believe Iraq has come a long way. More than 12 million people voted in the 2005 election. In Afghanistan, a third of children who are involved in schools are girls, whereas previously none was. For me, that represents human rights and democracy in action.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South has allowed me to put it on record that human rights and democracy are work in progress, whoever we are and in whatever country we are, and that includes the United Kingdom. The promotion of democracy is not just about elections, important though they are; it is about the work that we do to support the voice and the power of civil society to secure freedom of expression and to demand change. It is about building the rule of law, the accountability of the judiciary, the military and the police, and the capacity of political parties. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for City of York in chairing the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which has done so much in that regard.
	Let me close a debate that has highlighted much of the cruelty and tragedy that happen when leadership fails by paying tribute to a document that shows leadership at its best. The universal declaration of human rights, signed almost 60 years ago, was referred to by a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Daventry. I assure him that I will take away his shopping list, and the thought with which he presented it to the House. That document is a testament to a united world, written in the aftermath of a war that ripped the world apart. It is a reminder that we can choose whether we wish to be defined by what makes us different or by what we share. It shows us what nations can achieve when we come together to assert that all people everywhere are entitled to the freedoms that many of us take for granted, and it should reinforce our determination to do more and better to ensure that it—that landmark declaration of human rights—is as powerful in practice as it is in aspiration.
	I pay tribute to the work of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, to non-governmental organisations and, crucially, to those individuals who take a stand for human rights in countries and conditions that would make the best of us falter. We have had a wide-ranging debate, which has been powerful, well-informed and passionate. I hope that people will take that passion from the House today, and will not keep it to themselves.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of promoting democracy and human rights.

COMMITTEES

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will take motions 2 and 3 together.

Children, Schools and Families

Ordered,
	That Adam Afriyie be discharged from the Children, Schools and Families Committee and Mr Edward Timpson be added.

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

That Mr Douglas Carswell be discharged from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Mr Edward Timpson be added.— [Tony Cunningham , on behalf of the Committee of Selection .]

PETITION

Planning and Development (Essex)

Bob Spink: Overdevelopment is the most demanding specific local issue in my constituency. It is destroying our green belt and open spaces and causing harm to the quality of life of all residents. It is putting intolerable pressure on public services and infrastructure. The blame lies jointly with the Government's building targets, local councillors and a strange acquisition with developers. We need more transparency on planning in Castle Point, and we need councillors to start to listen to residents. I congratulate Robert Kimmel and all those who by signing this excellent petition show that they care about their local community.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of Robert J Kimmel, residents of Castle Point and others, declares that Castle Point is already overdeveloped for the infrastructure that exists and further development should be very carefully controlled and restricted and that the proposed development of 234 Benfleet Road in Castle Point is very much against the community's interests, and offends against material planning considerations including the overdevelopment of the site, an unacceptable imposition on the established street scene, inadequate garden and parking facilities and that it will impose an unacceptable burden on the general infrastructure and public facilities such as dentists and schools. We further record that this decision is the direct responsibility of the individual councillors who should decide this matter, rather than seeking to hide behind their officers.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make Castle Point Borough Councillors aware of this Petition and of the very deeply and widely held view of residents that Councillors should vote against this proposal.
	And the Petitioners remaining etc.
	[P000275]

DEATHS OF ANN MAWER AND SUE BARKER

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Chris Mole.]

Shona McIsaac: I would like to extend my thanks to Mr. Speaker for selecting this topic for debate.
	The issues that I wish to bring to the attention of the House relate to the deaths of Ann Mawer and Sue Barker on Christmas eve in 2007. On that Christmas eve, 52-year-old Ann Mawer went to work at Fred's Taxis in the town of Immingham. Within about 15 minutes of arriving at work, there was a horrific explosion at the taxi office, which killed both Ann and her friend and co-worker, Sue Barker. So intense was the fire that resulted from the explosion that the women had to be identified through DNA. Sue Barker's husband, who was the owner of the taxi firm, was injured in the incident.
	The deaths of those two women devastated the town of Immingham and the neighbouring village of South Killingholme. What should have been a time for families turned into a time of mourning for those communities. Hundreds of people attended the funerals of the women.
	From our investigations, it appears that a container with 25 litres of petrol had been filled up and taken into the taxi office that Christmas eve and stored under the counter where Ann and Sue worked. Either an office gas fire or an electrical appliance provided the ignition source that led to the explosion.
	Since that dreadful accident, I have been working with Ann Mawer's sisters, Sylvia Layton and Diana Ryan, to do all we can to ensure that no other person dies in such horrific circumstances. In a nutshell, the families are calling for the rules relating to fire safety to be toughened up. They also want harsher penalties for health and safety offences. They also believe that there needs to be far better training or education, so that people are aware of fire risks.
	One of the main pieces of legislation governing fire safety is the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. That order brought together fire safety legislation into one document. It requires any person who exercises some level of control in premises to take reasonable steps to reduce the risk from fire and to ensure occupants can safely escape if a fire does occur. That responsible person is meant to carry out or to nominate someone to carry out a fire risk assessment, identifying all risks and hazards. They are meant to consider who may be specifically at risk. They are meant to eliminate or reduce the risk from fire as far as is reasonably practical and to provide general fire precautions to deal with any risk.
	The responsible person is meant to take additional measures to ensure fire safety where flammable or explosive materials are used or stored. They are also meant to create a plan to deal with any emergency and, in most cases, to document the findings. The guidance states that achieving fire safety is often a matter of common sense, but that the person responsible will have to ensure that sufficient time is put aside to work through the necessary steps.
	To help ensure that premises comply with the legislation, an online self-assessment form is available. I have concerns about that. I looked at that self-assessment form and it is easy to fill in, but I do not think that it does anything to make anybody aware of the risks that could be inherent in a particular workplace. Indeed, as I went through those documents, I could not see anything that appeared to prevent the storage of such an amount of flammable fuel in such a small, enclosed office space. I feel that this needs to be reviewed, and there are some questions I would like the Minister to address tonight.
	First, are the laws regarding the storage of flammable substances such as petroleum in an office workplace robust enough? Should there be, for example, a prohibition on storing large amounts of petrol in confined spaces? Also, is self-assessment always sufficient? Can small and micro-businesses have the necessary knowledge—and, indeed, time—to self-assess the risk and act accordingly? Are the guidelines as they currently exist realistically enforceable? Is it sufficient to call for the use of common sense? I am sure that everybody will agree that one person's idea of what is sensible is not necessarily the next person's idea.
	Following the inquest on 16 July this year into the deaths of Ann and Sue, the coroner, Paul Kelly, wrote to North East Lincolnshire council on 18 July. In that letter he stated:
	"A jury has recently concluded that Ann Mawer and Susan Barker died as a result of an accident following an explosion at the Immingham service station."
	That is where Fred's Taxis was located.
	"The jury expressed a view that the public should be educated/re-educated on safety issues relating to purchase and storage of petroleum spirit—especially when domestic or office storage is involved.
	Discussions with the police have resulted in a similar view being expressed.
	Without being a complete or exhaustive list, general points raised include the fact that the legislation is dense, complex, and not readily understandable even to the trained eye; there appears to be no British Standard in respect of approved containers above a certain size; there are insufficient warning signs on garage forecourts as to the dangers of domestic carriage and storage and proprietors may have become complacent in observing self-service forecourts to identify possibly risky self-service and storage behaviour."
	The council replied to the letter from Mr. Kelly on 24 July, stating that it agreed
	"that public education would be useful"
	and that it is looking to use the incident
	"as a reminder to both sellers and purchasers of the dangers associated with petroleum spirit."
	However, the council also agreed
	"that the law around petroleum containers is unclear and in that respect unhelpful."
	I certainly agree with that point.
	I have been researching this issue along with relatives of Ann Mawer, and I think that there is contradictory and conflicting guidance about containers. On one hand, I read that according to the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002—DSEAR—there are no longer specific controls over the storage of petrol at workplace sites other than filling stations, yet on the other hand that workplaces need to comply with the requirements of DSEAR but do not need a licence. The legislation also seems to state—I would like the Minister to clarify these points—that workplaces no longer need to comply with regulations about containers. Yet it also states that no one should store more than 50 litres of petrol in a work room, and only then do so when it is kept in a properly labelled metal cabinet or bin with spillage retention. Some of those points appear contradictory, and I should like the Minister's Department to look into making the guidance about what is and is not allowed much clearer.
	I have also read that if a building is attached to a home or public place—I am not sure whether a taxi firm would be regarded as a public place—it is illegal to store more than 20 litres in two 10-litre metal containers. However, if plastic is used, no more than 10 litres can be stored, in two 5-litre containers. The House can see that there are several different amounts and types of container, and it is hardly surprising that people are not sure what they can and cannot do.
	I have raised the issue with representatives of Humberside fire and rescue service, who have expressed their concern to me about people's ignorance and sometimes risky behaviour as regards the storage of flammable substances. Although fire deaths are declining among the general public, deaths among firefighters are increasing. They believe that that is partly due to poorly stored flammable substances that they are not aware of. We therefore need better training and education for employers about keeping employees safe. Diana and Sylvia have called for that as well as for an examination of whether the law is sufficient to prevent such accidents from happening in future.
	Last week, on 9 October, I took Ann Mawer's sisters Diana and Sylvia to lobby the Minister responsible for health and safety, Lord McKenzie. The sisters put their case to him very powerfully and brought along a petition signed by more than 3,000 residents of the town of Immingham calling for an update in the law concerning the storage of flammable and hazardous substances in offices and workplaces. That shows the strength of feeling in our community about the loss of Ann and Sue in such tragic circumstances. Lord McKenzie indicated that he would examine the guidelines to see whether they could be updated to address our concerns. He has also agreed to meet us again when North East Lincolnshire council completes its investigation into the events of that day.
	On penalties, I understand that the Health and Safety (Offences) Bill, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), had its Third Reading in the House of Lords on Friday and should gain Royal Assent shortly. The Bill will amend various aspects of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to increase the maximum fines available for health and safety offences. It will also make a prison sentence an option for most health and safety offences, whereas at the moment it is available only for certain offences. It will also mean that offences that used to be tried in lower courts can be tried in either lower or higher courts.
	As my right hon. Friend stressed when he spoke in support of those changes, there are nearly 250 work-related deaths a year in the UK, nearly 30,000 major injuries and well over 100,000 more minor injuries that keep people off work. As he put it, the Bill
	"will allow us to punish the criminally negligent who put life and limb in danger, deter those who attempt to cut costs by breaking health and safety law, and render justice faster and more efficient".—[ Official Report, 1 February 2008; Vol. 471, c. 618.]
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell me when he anticipates the Bill gaining Royal Assent and when it will come into force. If someone is charged with any health and safety breaches in relation to the deaths of Ann Mawer and Sue Barker, will they be tried under the old rules or the new? I hope that my hon. Friend and Lord McKenzie will work with Ann's family to identify where the law may be lacking and suggest changes that will increase workplace safety.
	Each April in North East Lincolnshire, there is a workers memorial day to remember those who have lost their lives in the workplace. Wreaths are laid by families and friends and by public representatives to remember those who lost their lives in Immingham, in Grimsby and in Cleethorpes. The event in our area is organised by Immingham resident and Transport and General Workers Union member Nobby Styles, who has campaigned for the event to be recognised nationally. Next year, we who lay our wreaths every year will be joined by Sylvia and Diana, who will lay a wreath in memory of their sister, Ann. The memorial plaque in Immingham where we lay our wreaths is located just yards away from where the explosion took place last Christmas eve. I hope that my hon. Friend can look seriously at the concerns raised by the whole community.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am sure that the whole House will commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) for bringing this issue to its attention. Let me say how sorry I was to read about this incident, which resulted in the tragic deaths of Ann Mawer and Sue Barker. I am sure that all Members wish to express their deepest sympathy to the families of Ann and Sue.
	My hon. Friend referred to a meeting that she had with my ministerial colleague Lord McKenzie last Thursday. She was able to meet Ann Mawer's sisters, Diana Ryan and Sylvia Layton, to hear their views on the incident and to discuss the legislation on the storage of petrol. My noble Friend has agreed to meet my hon. Friend and Sylvia and Diana once the legal proceedings that may follow have been concluded, in order to discuss their further concerns.
	The fire and its cause have been investigated by North East Lincolnshire council under health and safety legislation, as enforcement responsibility for the taxi office premises in question falls to the local authority, not the Health and Safety Executive. As the council is still considering whether there should be any legal proceedings as a result of the incident, I am sure that you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as will my hon. Friend, that this evening I cannot go into specific detail about what happened. However, I hope it will be helpful if I outline the legislation covering the workplace and work activities in general, and specific legislation covering the storage and dispensing of petrol. I will then consider what we can do to remind people of all the dangers associated with petrol and how it should be handled.
	First and foremost, all employers, regardless of their business, are required under health and safety legislation to ensure that the risks to their employees are avoided or reduced as far as is reasonably practicable. They also have a similar responsibility to avoid or mitigate risks to members of the public from any activity undertaken as part of their business. This primary legislation has been in force for more than 30 years. It forms the basis of Great Britain's health and safety system and lays down the core principle that those who create risks are responsible for removing or controlling them. There is also further, secondary legislation that spells out in more detail what employers must do to meet their duties: the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, which explicitly require employers to carry out risk assessments and then act on them.
	There is further specific legislation that deals solely with the health and safety risks from dangerous substances, including petrol. The Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 reinforce the general duties in the legislation that I mentioned earlier by specifying the need to eliminate or reduce risks from flammable substances, including, of course, petrol. It can therefore be seen that there is comprehensive legal coverage to ensure that employers working with highly flammable substances, including petrol, know that they have to assess the risks and take steps to eliminate or reduce the chance of accidents arising from their activities. This means that employers are not free just to store petrol in any way they want, but must do so safely. The workplace legislative regime is very relevant to the tragic circumstances that have brought us to the House this evening and, as I have noted, the enforcing authority is still considering the compliance with these requirements in respect of this accident.
	I should add that all this legislation is supported by published HSE guidance, including information available on the HSE's website, aimed at making it clear what is required of employers and providing advice on how they might go about doing what is necessary. For example, the HSE has published free leaflets on fire and explosion risks in the workplace and on working safely with flammable substances aimed at giving small businesses advice on the relevant legislation and on the control measures that are necessary. More comprehensive, priced guidance is also available, including an approved code of practice on the storage of dangerous substances.
	The HSE also recognises that to small businesses the legal framework may sometimes appear complex and may divert attention from the key actions that they need to take to manage their health and safety needs effectively. So, to help small businesses focus on key risks likely to cause injury or harm, the HSE has produced simplified, straightforward guidance, such as its "Five steps to risk assessment", and example risk assessments available on its website.
	Finally, on the legislation in this case, there is safety law that applies specifically to petrol filling stations. The Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 sets out a well established regime designed to ensure that all activities relating to the storage and dispensing of petrol at filling stations are undertaken safely. It does that through a licensing regime whereby any petrol station operator must hold a licence from the local petroleum licensing authority, which is usually the fire authority or the local authority—in this case, it is North East Lincolnshire council's trading standards service. Petroleum licensing authorities can and do place conditions on licences, requiring or prohibiting anything that they think expedient to the safe storage or dispensing of petrol.
	To bring about consistency around the country, licensing authorities have agreed a national set of conditions, which they are all encouraged to apply. One of the conditions lays down the types of portable containers that can have petrol dispensed into them at petrol stations. In essence, they are: metal containers meeting certain prescribed constructional and labelling requirements and not exceeding 10 litres in capacity; plastic containers that also meet certain prescribed constructional and labelling requirements and not exceeding 5 litres in capacity; demountable fuel tanks of motor boats or similar vessels, or containers approved under the United Nations packaging scheme for carrying petrol in containers by road. Again, I believe that the law, as applied in this country, is clear on the types of containers that can be filled at petrol stations.
	It may help my hon. Friend to know that the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act also regulates non-workplace storage of petrol—storage in domestic property or private clubs and the like, where there is no employment. That covers what you or I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can keep in our home, shed, garage or similar location. In essence, for anything other than small amounts of petrol, similar licence requirements as for petrol stations apply. However, in recognition of the fact that many people need to keep small amounts of petrol as emergency supplies for cars, or for petrol powered equipment such as lawn mowers, there are exemptions from the need for a licence in certain circumstances. In general, those allow for the storage in domestic premises of no more than two 10-litre metal vessels and two 5-litre suitable plastic vessels. In the latter case, "suitable" is legally defined and essentially means constructed of appropriate plastic material, with a capacity of no more than 5 litres and appropriately marked.
	Those are sensible requirements on domestic and other non-workplace premises to allow reasonable access to petrol while ensuring that no one stores larger quantities of petrol in premises not suited to such an activity. Anyone who did so would, of course, endanger not only themselves but neighbouring property and people who would be affected in the event of a spillage or fire.
	The Government do not necessarily see additional regulation as the solution to all problems. Indeed, there might often be more of an issue about the level of compliance with existing regulations. Awareness of the law and guidance is therefore also important and I understand that my noble Friend Lord McKenzie has asked the HSE to liaise with a body known as the petroleum enforcement liaison group, which is made up of representatives from enforcing authorities—the experts who deal daily with these issues on the ground— and representatives of the petrol industry to consider the factors involved in this tragic incident, with a view to getting the relevant messages and lessons that need to be learned across to people who have duties under the various petrol-related legislation. My hon. Friend raised a number of points this evening and I will ensure that my noble Friend reads the debate and answers her in full, which I am sure he will be pleased to do.
	The Government believe that the law covering the storage of highly flammable liquids, including petrol, is well established and has contributed to an extremely low level of accidents over many years. However, I agree that we must never be complacent. Any tragedy such as the one that has been brought before the House this evening should make us think again about what else can be done to avoid such accidents and incidents in future. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the case. Once again, I express my deepest sympathies to the families of the two ladies involved.
	Throughout our careers in the House as constituency MPs, we are each touched by tragic cases among the people we represent. It is our duty to do everything we can to support families in such circumstances. Normally when one begins an Adjournment debate, one congratulates the hon. Member, but I did not do so because I did not think that "congratulate" was an appropriate word to use in this case. I commend my hon. Friend for bringing the case to the House and for the work that she has done on behalf of her constituents. She has described the pain that has been felt in the communities of Immingham and South Killingholme. She has performed a good service for her constituents this evening and I know that she will continue to pursue the case. That is the right thing for her to do, given the tragic circumstances in which the two ladies lost their lives.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.